Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 2035942

Autonomic activity.

Abstract

A review such as this can do no more than provide an indication of the issues involved in using autonomic activity as a means of providing a "window on the brain." Several points arise. One of the most important is that of careful and appropriate use of techniques available. One well-known textbook of experimental psychology published some time ago advocated the use of two dimes applied to the palm of the hand for the measurement of electrodermal activity. It was this sort of recommendation that led to the use of psychophysiological measurement falling into disrepute. As indicated in the second section, it is important to understand fully the peripheral mechanisms involved before measurement of electrodermal activity can be usefully carried out. Appropriate use of silver/silver chloride electrodes and physiologically appropriate levels of saline in the electrolyte medium can lead to accurate and repeatable measurement where artefact is not carelessly introduced. Equally important is the context in which studies are carried out. The psychological invasiveness of the technique is important to recognize, and it is here that measurement of autonomic activity probably scores over other methods that are available insofar as very little restriction of the subject is required and the number of transducers that must be applied is minimal. The measurement of autonomic activity within the totality of the experimental context is all important. As an example Dawson and Schell investigated the SCR to words which had previously been associated with shock. When these words were presented to the ear to which attention was not directed in a dichotic listening paradigm, an SCR could be elicited although the subject was unaware of the presentation of the stimulus. The importance of the Dawson and Schell study was the care that they took to make sure that the subject really was unaware of the critical stimulus and had not momentarily switched attention from the attended ear. More important, their experiment, in contrast to some which had gone before, used a balanced design in which the critical stimuli were presented on different occasions to each ear. As a result of this it was found that critical stimuli, which were presented to the left ear, right hemisphere, gave rise to SCRs, even when the subject was not aware of their presentation, whereas stimuli presented to the right ear, left hemisphere elicited no response.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

P H Venables. 1991. Autonomic activity.. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1991.tb51584.x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

The diagnostic workup of patients with neuropathic pain.

Determining the causes of neuropathic pain is more than an epistemological exercise. At its essence, it is a quest to delineate mechanisms of dysfunction through which treatment strategies can be created that are effective in reducing, ameliorating, or eliminating symptomatology. To date, predictors of which patients will develop neuropathic pain or who will respond to specific therapies are lacking, and present therapies have been developed mainly through trial and error. Our current inability to make therapeutically meaningful decisions based on ancillary test data is illustrated by the following: In a study specifically designed to assess the response of patients with painful distal sensory neuropathies to the 5% lidocaine patch, no relationship between treatment response and distal leg skin biopsy, QST, or sensory nerve conduction study results could be established. From a mechanistic perspective, the hypothesis that the lidocaine patch would be most effective in patients with relatively intact epidermal innervation, whose neuropathic pain is presumed attributable to "irritable nociceptors," and least effective in patients with few surviving epidermal nociceptors, presumably with "deafferentation pain," was unproven. The possible explanations are multiple and outside the scope of this review. However, these findings, coupled with the disparity in C-fiber subtype involvement in diabetic small-fiber neuropathy, and the recently reported inability of enzyme replacement therapy in Fabry disease to influence intraepidermal innervation density, while having mixed effects on cold and warm QST thresholds, and beneficial effects on sudomotor findings, when therapeutic benefit was demonstrated, lead one to conclude that the specificity of ancillary testing in neuropathic pain is inadequate at present, and reinforce the aforementioned caveats about inferential conclusions from indirect data. The diagnosis of neuropathic pain mechanisms is in its nascent stages and ancillary testing remains "subordinate," "subsidiary," and "auxiliary" as defined in Webster's Third New International Dictionary. As a consequence of these difficulties, the recent approach by Bennett and his colleagues may have merit. They have hypothesized (and provide data in support) that chronic pain can be more or less neuropathic on a spectrum between "likely," "possible," and "unlikely," based on patient responses on validated neuropathic pain symptom scales, when compared with specialist pain physician certainty of the presence of neuropathic pain on a 100-mm visual analog scale. The symptoms most associated with neuropathic pain were dysesthesias, evoked pain, paroxysmal pain, thermal pain, autonomic complaints, and descriptions of the pain as being sharp, hot, or cold, with high sensitivity. Higher scores for these symptoms correlated with greater clinician certainty of the presence of neuropathic pain mechanisms. Considering each individual patient's chronic pain as being somewhere on a continuum between "purely nociceptive" and "purely neuropathic" may have diagnostic and therapeutic relevance by enhancing specificity, but this requires clinical confirmation. Thus, symptom assessment remains indispensable in the evaluation of neuropathic pain, ancillary testing notwithstanding

Autonomic Nervous System↗