» Articles » PMID: 7310707

Effects of Efferent Stimulation on the Saccule of Goldfish

Overview
Journal J Physiol
Specialty Physiology
Date 1981 Jun 1
PMID 7310707
Citations 22
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

1. The effect of single or repetitive stimulation applied to efferent nerve fibres on afferent nerve activity and microphonic potentials was studied in the saccule of goldfish. 2. The sound-evoked excitatory post-synaptic potentials (e.p.s.p.s) recorded intracellularly from afferent eighth nerve fibres were reduced in size or completely abolished by efferent stimulation. The maximum inhibitory effect produced by repetitive efferent stimulation was equivalent to reducing the sound intensity by 10-25 db. Spontaneous miniature e.p.s.p.s were also suppressed by efferent stimulation. 3. The effect of single efferent stimulation appeared with a delay of 607 msec and lasted for about 40 msec, reaching its peak at about 12 msec. The slow and prolonged time course makes a sharp contrast with the very fast time course of afferent synaptic action. 4. The application of hyperpolarizing current through the recording micro-electrode revealed no sign of a post-synaptic increase in membrane conductance during inhibition. Hence, the inhibition was mostly attributable to a presynaptic action, i.e. to a suppression of transmitter release from hair cells. 5. Individual e.p.s.p.s were evoked in response to each wave of sound without any change in latency, but reached their peak much earlier during inhibition than in the control period. A likely explanation for this finding is that transmitter is released from hair cells during inhibition only in the early part of the stimulatory phase of the sound wave. 6. The extracellularly recorded microphonic potentials showed a slight increase in amplitude during efferent stimulation. 7. The nature and site of action of efferent nerve action are discussed along with some drug effects.

Citing Articles

Effects of Efferent Activity on Hair Bundle Mechanics.

Lin C, Bozovic D J Neurosci. 2020; 40(12):2390-2402.

PMID: 32086256 PMC: 7083535. DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1312-19.2020.


A review of efferent cholinergic synaptic transmission in the vestibular periphery and its functional implications.

Poppi L, Holt J, Lim R, Brichta A J Neurophysiol. 2019; 123(2):608-629.

PMID: 31800345 PMC: 7132328. DOI: 10.1152/jn.00053.2019.


Reviewing the Role of the Efferent Vestibular System in Motor and Vestibular Circuits.

Mathews M, Camp A, Murray A Front Physiol. 2017; 8:552.

PMID: 28824449 PMC: 5539236. DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2017.00552.


Catecholaminergic innervation of central and peripheral auditory circuitry varies with reproductive state in female midshipman fish, Porichthys notatus.

Forlano P, Ghahramani Z, Monestime C, Kurochkin P, Chernenko A, Milkis D PLoS One. 2015; 10(4):e0121914.

PMID: 25849450 PMC: 4388377. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0121914.


Vocal corollary discharge communicates call duration to vertebrate auditory system.

Chagnaud B, Bass A J Neurosci. 2013; 33(48):18775-80.

PMID: 24285884 PMC: 3841447. DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3140-13.2013.


References
1.
Wiederhold M, PEAKE W . Efferent inhibition of auditory-nerve responses: dependence on acoustic-stimulus parameters. J Acoust Soc Am. 1966; 40(6):1427-30. DOI: 10.1121/1.1910243. View

2.
Fex J . Augmentation of cochlear microphonic by stimulation of efferent fibres to the cochlea; preliminary report. Acta Otolaryngol. 1959; 50:540-1. DOI: 10.3109/00016485909129230. View

3.
Furukawa T, Ishii Y . Neurophysiological studies on hearing in goldfish. J Neurophysiol. 1967; 30(6):1377-403. DOI: 10.1152/jn.1967.30.6.1377. View

4.
Russell I . Influence of efferent fibres on a receptor. Nature. 1968; 219(5150):177-8. DOI: 10.1038/219177a0. View

5.
Llinas R, Precht W . The inhibitory vestibular efferent system and its relation to the cerebellum in the frog. Exp Brain Res. 1969; 9(1):16-29. DOI: 10.1007/BF00235449. View