Widespread nociceptive maps in the human neonatal somatosensory cortex

  1. Laura Jones  Is a corresponding author
  2. Madeleine Verriotis
  3. Robert J Cooper
  4. Maria Pureza Laudiano-Dray
  5. Mohammed Rupawala
  6. Judith Meek
  7. Lorenzo Fabrizi
  8. Maria Fitzgerald  Is a corresponding author
  1. University College London, United Kingdom
  2. University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom

Abstract

Topographic cortical maps are essential for spatial localisation of sensory stimulation and generation of appropriate task-related motor responses. Somatosensation and nociception are finely mapped and aligned in the adult somatosensory (S1) cortex, but in infancy, when pain behaviour is disorganised and poorly directed, nociceptive maps may be less refined. We compared the topographic pattern of S1 activation following noxious (clinically required heel lance) and innocuous (touch) mechanical stimulation of the same skin region in newborn infants (n=32) using multi-optode functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS). Within S1 cortex, touch and lance of the heel elicit localised, partially overlapping increases in oxygenated haemoglobin concentration (D[HbO]), but while touch activation was restricted to the heel area, lance activation extended into cortical hand regions. The data reveals a widespread cortical nociceptive map in infant S1, consistent with their poorly directed pain behaviour.

Data availability

All raw data files are open access and are available to download from Figshare (https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.13252388.v2).

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Laura Jones

    Department of Neuroscience, Physiology and Pharmacology, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    laura.a.jones@ucl.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5755-4977
  2. Madeleine Verriotis

    Department of Developmental Neuroscience, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-3019-0370
  3. Robert J Cooper

    Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Maria Pureza Laudiano-Dray

    Department of Neuroscience, Physiology and Pharmacology, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Mohammed Rupawala

    Department of Neuroscience, Physiology and Pharmacology, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Judith Meek

    Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Obstetric Wing, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Lorenzo Fabrizi

    Department of Neuroscience, Physiology and Pharmacology, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9582-0727
  8. Maria Fitzgerald

    Department of Neuroscience, Physiology and Pharmacology, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    m.fitzgerald@ucl.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-4188-0123

Funding

Medical Research Council (MR/M006468/1)

  • Judith Meek
  • Lorenzo Fabrizi
  • Maria Fitzgerald

Medical Research Council (MR/L019248/1)

  • Lorenzo Fabrizi

Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/N025946/1)

  • Robert J Cooper

Medical Research Council (MR/S003207/1)

  • Judith Meek
  • Lorenzo Fabrizi
  • Maria Fitzgerald

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Ethics

Human subjects: Ethical approval for this study was given by the NHS Health Research Authority (London - Surrey Borders) and the study conformed to the standards set by the Declaration of Helsinki. Informed written parental consent was obtained before each study (REC no: 11/LO/0350; NIHR Portfolio Study ID: 12036). Separate media consent was obtained from the parent to use a photo of their child in academic publications (Figure 4a).

Copyright

© 2022, Jones et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 1,056
    views
  • 250
    downloads
  • 10
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Laura Jones
  2. Madeleine Verriotis
  3. Robert J Cooper
  4. Maria Pureza Laudiano-Dray
  5. Mohammed Rupawala
  6. Judith Meek
  7. Lorenzo Fabrizi
  8. Maria Fitzgerald
(2022)
Widespread nociceptive maps in the human neonatal somatosensory cortex
eLife 11:e71655.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.71655

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.71655

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Sisi Wang, Freek van Ede
    Research Article

    A classic distinction from the domain of external attention is that between anticipatory orienting and subsequent re-orienting of attention to unexpected events. Whether and how humans also re-orient attention ‘in mind’ following expected and unexpected working-memory tests remains elusive. We leveraged spatial modulations in neural activity and gaze to isolate re-orienting within the spatial layout of visual working memory following central memory tests of certain, expected, or unexpected mnemonic content. Besides internal orienting after predictive cues, we unveil a second stage of internal attentional deployment following both expected and unexpected memory tests. Following expected tests, internal attentional deployment was not contingent on prior orienting, suggesting an additional verification – ‘double checking’ – in memory. Following unexpected tests, re-focusing of alternative memory content was prolonged. This brings attentional re-orienting to the domain of working memory and underscores how memory tests can invoke either a verification or a revision of our internal focus.

    1. Computational and Systems Biology
    2. Neuroscience
    Brian DePasquale, Carlos D Brody, Jonathan W Pillow
    Research Article Updated

    Accumulating evidence to make decisions is a core cognitive function. Previous studies have tended to estimate accumulation using either neural or behavioral data alone. Here, we develop a unified framework for modeling stimulus-driven behavior and multi-neuron activity simultaneously. We applied our method to choices and neural recordings from three rat brain regions—the posterior parietal cortex (PPC), the frontal orienting fields (FOF), and the anterior-dorsal striatum (ADS)—while subjects performed a pulse-based accumulation task. Each region was best described by a distinct accumulation model, which all differed from the model that best described the animal’s choices. FOF activity was consistent with an accumulator where early evidence was favored while the ADS reflected near perfect accumulation. Neural responses within an accumulation framework unveiled a distinct association between each brain region and choice. Choices were better predicted from all regions using a comprehensive, accumulation-based framework and different brain regions were found to differentially reflect choice-related accumulation signals: FOF and ADS both reflected choice but ADS showed more instances of decision vacillation. Previous studies relating neural data to behaviorally inferred accumulation dynamics have implicitly assumed that individual brain regions reflect the whole-animal level accumulator. Our results suggest that different brain regions represent accumulated evidence in dramatically different ways and that accumulation at the whole-animal level may be constructed from a variety of neural-level accumulators.