Bulletin of Experimental Biology and Medicine

, Volume 53, Issue 2, pp 133–137 | Cite as

The physiological properties of the sensory fibers of the phrenic and intercostal nerves

  • V. D. Glebovskii


Action potentials from the 5th and 6th cervical dorsal roots induced by electrical stimulation of the phrenic nerve in the diaphragm were recorded from spinal cats. Action potentials were found corresponding to sensory fibers having conduction rates of about 120, 90, and 70 meters per second and less. The sensory fibers had a high excitability which was greater than that of motor fibers of the same conduction velocity. These sensory fibers are similar to those which conduct impulses from the stretch receptors of muscles. No more than 8 or 9 sensory fibers in the phrenic nerve were found having conduction rates of above 36 motors per second. The intercostal nerves contain more rapidly conducting sensory fibers, among which fibers of group 2 prevail.


Public Health Electrical Stimulation Dorsal Root Conduction Velocity Sensory Fiber 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. 1.
    A. S. Dogiel, Arch. f. mikr. Anat. u. Entwickl., Bd. 59, S. 1–2 (1902).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    N. O. Kowaljewsky and E. Adamük, Zbl. f. Med. Wissensch., S. 579 (1868).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    R. A. Luria, The Role of the Sensory Nerves of the Diaphram in the Innervation of Respiration. Disertation. Kazan', (1902).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    L. F. Mavrinskaya, Arkh. anat. gistol. i embriol. Vol. 38, No. 2, p. 61 (1960).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    I. N. Matochkin, In book: Collected works of the Archangel State Medical Institute, No. 9, p. 4 (1949).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    N. V. Sanotskaya, In book: Problems of the Regulation of Respiration in Health and Disease AMN SSSR. Moscow, p. 67 (1959).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    D. A. Timofeiew, Arch. f. mikr. Anat. u. Entwickl. Bd. 59, S. 629 (1902).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. C. Eccles, R. M. Eccles, and A. Lundberg, J. Physiol., Vol. 136 p. 527 (1957).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    A. Fleisch, E. Grandjean, and R. Crausaz, Helv. Physiol. Acta, Vol. 4, p. 127 (1946).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    B. Gemandt, Acta Physiol. Scand., Vol. 12, f. 2–3, p. 255 (1946).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    E. Hagbarth and G. Wohlfart, Acta anat., Vol. 15, p. 85 (1952).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    J. C. Hinsey, K. Hare, and R. A. Phillips, Proc. Soc. exp. Biol. N. Y. Vol. 41, p. 411 (1939).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    J. C. Hinsey and R. A. Phillips, J. Neurophysiol., Vol. 3, p. 175 (1940).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    T. B. Hursh, Am. J. Physiol., Vol. 127, No. 1, p. 131 (1939).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    D. P. C. Lloyd and H. T. Chang, J. Neurophysiol., Vol. 11, No. 3, p. 199 (1948).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    J. Schreiber, Arch. ges. Physiol. Bd. 31, S. 577 (1883).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Consultants Bureau 1962

Authors and Affiliations

  • V. D. Glebovskii
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Normal PhysiologyPediatric Medical InstituteLeningrad

Personalised recommendations