HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Miles, T S Articles by Nordstrom, M A Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Miles, T S Articles by Nordstrom, M A

Department of Physiology, University of Adelaide, Australia.

1. The reflex responses to stretch were studied in single motor units and the surface electromyogram in human masseter. 2. Controlled stretches of the isometrically contracting jaw-closing muscles evoked short-latency (10-15 ms) and long-latency (35-70 ms) excitatory reflex responses in the masseter surface electromyogram. 3. The majority (65%) of tonically active masseter motor units were excited in both short- and long-latency phases of the reflex. The timing of the stimulus determined whether the unit discharged in the short- or long-latency phase. If a non-tonically active motor unit was recruited by the stimulus, it invariably discharged in the long-latency phase. 4. Although short-latency responses were strongly time-locked to the stimulus, there was very little shortening of interspike intervals (ISIs) in this phase of the reflex. The shortening of ISIs was more prominent and prolonged during the long-latency phase, which explains why this phase produces most of the reflex force changes following the stretch. 5. Within pairs of concurrently active motor units there was a tenfold range in the size of the short-latency response to the same stretch. 6. A substantial proportion (35%) of the twenty-two masseter motor units tested had no statistically significant short-latency reflex response. 7. In contrast to other human muscles, there was no functional connection between a population of Ia afferents and some masseter motoneurons. There are two possible explanations for this result. The short-latency, presumably monosynaptic, Ia afferent inputs may not be uniformly distributed to human masseter motoneurons. Alternatively, these inputs may be subject to tonic presynaptic inhibition that is not uniformly distributed throughout the masseter motoneuron pool.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				T. S. Miles, S. C. Flavel, and M. A. Nordstrom Control of human mandibular posture during locomotion J. Physiol., January 1, 2004; 554(1): 216 - 226. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. S. Turker REFLEX CONTROL OF HUMAN JAW MUSCLES Crit. Rev. Oral. Biol. Med., January 1, 2002; 13(1): 85 - 104. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. S. Turker REFLEX CONTROL OF HUMAN JAW MUSCLES Critical Reviews in Oral Biology & Medicine, January 1, 2002; 13(1): 85 - 104. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S.J.J. Turkawski and T.M.G.J. Van Eijden EMG Power Spectrum and Motor Unit Characteristics in the Masseter Muscle of the Rabbit Journal of Dental Research, April 1, 2000; 79(4): 950 - 956. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. D. Scutter and K. S. Turker Muscle Spindle Afferent Input to Motoneurons in Human Masseter J Neurophysiol, July 1, 1999; 82(1): 505 - 507. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. van der Bilt, Ea.M. Ottenhoff, H.W. van der Glas, F. Bosman, and J.H. Abbink Modulation of the Mandibular Stretch Reflex Sensitivity During Various Phases of Rhythmic Open-Close Movements in Humans Journal of Dental Research, April 1, 1997; 76(4): 839 - 847. [Abstract] [PDF]