Spatial Analysis of the Nociceptive Withdrawal Response in the Hindlimb of Spinalized Rats

_______________________
A Project Presented to
the Faculty of the Undergraduate
College of Science and Mathematics
James Madison University
_______________________
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of Bachelor of Science
_______________________
by Craig Edison Archibald Esquivel
May 2010

Accepted by the faculty of the Department of Biology, James Madison University, in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Science.
FACULTY COMMITTEE:

HONORS PROGRAM APPROVAL:

Project Advisor: Corey L. Cleland, Ph.D.,

Associate Professor, Biology

Dr. Barry Falk, Ph.D.,

Director, Honors Program

Reader: Jim Dendinger, Ph.D.,

Associate Professor, Biology

Reader: Cheryl P. Talley, Ph.D.

Associate Professor, Neuroscience
Department of Psychology
Virginia State University

Table of Contents
List of Figures

Acknowledgements

Abstract

Introduction

Methodology

13

Results

24

Discussion

36

Works Cited

40

List of Figures
1

Tracking Points of the Left Hindlimb

14

Rat Suspension Apparatus

16

Cloth Sling

17

Illumination Setup

18

Stimulation Points

20

Video Frame Sequence of Initial Movement

25

Direction of Movement in Three Separate Dimensions

26

Direction of Movement in Two Dimensions

27

Average Response Direction (Caudal/Rostral & Lateral/Medial)

28

10

Rat Coordinate Plane Caudal/Rostral & Lateral/Medial)

29

11

Average Response Direction (Dorsal/Ventral & Caudal/Rostral)

30

12

Rat Coordinate Plane ( Dorsal/Ventral & Caudal/Rostral )

30

13

Average Response Speed

31

14

Video Frame Sequence of Second Movement

33

15

Frequency of Movement

34

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank:

Dr. Cleland for his help in guiding this research
Dr. Dendinger and Dr. Talley for their efforts in reviewing this paper
Lindsey Wyatt for her assistance in designing experiments
The Jeffress Foundation (CLC) for funding

Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine the behavior of the nociceptive withdrawal
response (NWR) in the hindlimb of a spinalized rat when presented with a noxious heat stimulus to the
foot. There are two competing schools of thought regarding the transformation of spatial aspects of
sensory information in the NWR and this study focused on determining which would apply to the
hindlimb. The first describes the NWR as continuous, meaning that each stimulation location will be
directly linked to a specific withdrawal location. The other describes the NWR as categorical, meaning
that the withdrawal reflex will consistently be in one or more preferred directions regardless of stimulus
location. A heat stimulus was applied to the foot at eight location and movement of the the foot was
recorded using two, high-speed video cameras. Offline analysis resulted in a three-dimensional
trajectory of the foot. The results showed a withdrawal response with two distinct components: an
initial movement and a secondary movement. The initial movement was consistent and in the rostralmedial direction with no dorsal/ventral component and the response direction was not dependent on
stimulus location. However, the results showed that when heat stimuli were applied to the plantar
surface of the foot, the response speed weakened as the stimulus location moved into the stimulus. The
secondary movement was not as consistent as the initial movement, both in the frequency of
occurrence and in direction (both rostral and caudal movements occurred) , but was predominantly in
the rostral-medial direction with a dorsal component. The secondary movement was also not
dependent on stimulus location. In conclusion, these results support the categorical hypothesis of the
NWR of the foot of spinalized rats.

Introduction
The ability to detect pain is advantageous in animals because it allows them to detect
stimuli that could result in damage to body tissue. The ability to detect pain is, however, only
advantageous if the animal can then elicit a response that will stop the damage to tissue or
remove the risk (Bear et al., 2006). One way in which organisms can do this is to move toward
the stimulus, which may occur because the organism wishes to neutralize the cause of
stimulation. For example, Little Blue herons use their bill to peck at and remove mosquitoes
from their legs and upper body (Edman et al., 1984). In scorpions, when a light touch is applied,
the scorpion vigorously moves its stinger and pedipalps toward the point of stimulation (Palka
and Babu, 1967). However, another way in which organisms can stop the damage to tissue or
remove the risk is to either move its body part or entire body away from the stimulus. For
example, when a puff of air is blown on a scorpion, it responds by pulling in its pedipalps
towards its mouth while erecting the tail and then scuttling backwards (Palka and Babu, 1967).
In skinks, when a heat stimulus is applied to the tail, it frequently moves its tail towards the
stimulus (Tam et al., 2005). When rats are exposed to the odor of a predator such as a cat, the rat
will walk directly backwards or will turn around and rush away (Dielenberg and McGregor,
2001). Similarly, heat stimuli applied to the base of the tail of long tailed grass lizards caused
them to run away from the stimulus (Del Toro et al. 2006)
Pain is perceived through somatic nociceptors, which are sensory nerve endings that
detect stimuli that could result in damage to body tissue (Cleland and Gebhart, 1997).
Nociceptors can be activated by multiple types of stimuli such as strong mechanical stimulation,
extremes in temperature, oxygen deprivation, and exposure to harmful chemicals. Nociceptors
6

then transmit signals ultimately to the brain which may then trigger pain perceptions (Bear et al.,
2006). Two types of nociceptors are A mechanoheat and c-fiber polymodal nociceptors (Leem,
1993), which are activated by noxious heat above 41C or cold below 5C. Recent findings have
suggested that there may be at least two different types of thermal nociceptors that respond to
heat, one type which is activated at 41C and another that is activated at 53C (Nagy and Rang,
1999).
The neural substrates of motor control in mammals can be discussed in two parts: one
part is the spinal cord, which has the ability to command and control coordinated muscle
contraction, and another part is the brain, which has the ability to command voluntary
movements and control the motor programs in the spinal cord. There are four major descending
pathways from the brain to the spinal cord that influence movements. These pathways originate
in the vestibular nuclei, the brain stem reticular formation, the red nucleus, and the cerebral
cortex. These pathways can be grouped into the lateral column pathways (red nucleus, central
canal) and the ventromedial column pathways (ventromedial cortex, reticular). The lateral
pathways primarily control voluntary movement of the distal musculature whereas the
ventromedial pathways primarily control and regulate posture, locomotion, and spinal reflexes
(Bear et al., 2006).
The spinal cord consists of an inner core of gray matter surrounded by a layer of white
matter. Grey matter contains cell bodies whereas white matter contains axons which connect the
spinal cord to the brain and other parts of the spinal cord and periphery. Within the gray matter,
the tissue is further divided into the dorsal horn, intermediate zone, and ventral horn (Barr and
Kiernan, 2004). Most of the second-order sensory neurons that reside in the spinal cord, those
7

that receive sensory input from primary afferents, are located within the dorsal horn. There are
many types of reflexes that the spinal cord can mediate, but one major type that is used to
mediate an escape response is the nociceptive withdrawal reflex (NWR) (Bear et al., 2006).
Nociceptive Withdrawal Response
After being stimulated by a noxious stimulus, nociceptive sensory neurons can transmit
signals that enter the spinal cord and are widely branched, and thus can activate interneurons in
many different segments of the spinal cord. These interneurons can then excite motoneurons
causing the limb to be withdrawn from the aversive stimulus. This response is called the
nociceptive withdrawal response and can be stimulated by tissue-damaging or potentially tissuedamaging sensory stimuli. Creed et al. (1932) showed that mammals are still able to elicit a
response in the muscles below a spinal transection , thus showing that the NWR was mediated by
the spinal cord in spinalized animals. The NWR can also be evoked by non-nociceptors and
there may be a convergence onto common interneurons in the reflex pathway (Hultborn, 2006).
Multiple types of nociceptors such as mechanical and thermal can also evoke the NWR
(Schouenborg and Kalliomaki 1992; Cleland and Bauer 2002). For the NWR to function
correctly, it is necessary for the central nervous system (CNS) to transform nociceptive
information into spatially and temporally coordinated activation of muscles (Bizzi et al., 1991).
The way in which the CNS responds and transforms spatial aspects of the sensory information
has given rise to multiple hypotheses as to how the CNS transforms the sensory information into
a response.

Continuous and Categorical Patterns of Interpretation of the Nociceptive Withdrawal

Response
There are two competing hypotheses regarding the transformation of spatial aspects of
sensory information in the NWR. The first describes the NWR as continuous, which was first
defined by Lewis and Kristan (1998) to mean that each stimulation location corresponded to a
withdrawal response that was characterized as directly away from the stimulus location. This
definition was later revised, and expanded, by Cleland and Bauer (2002) who defined it as a
response where each stimulation location was directly linked to a specific withdrawal location. In
other words, as the stimulus location changed, the direction of withdrawal changed in order to
better match the stimulus location. This could be beneficial to the animal since it would increase
the chances of the response being directed away from the stimulus, thus leading to less tissue
damage. The other hypothesis describes the NWR as categorical, meaning that the withdrawal
reflex will consistently be in one or more preferred directions regardless of stimulus location
(Lewis and Kristan, 1998). In other words, although the stimulus location may change, the
withdrawal directions will not change as much. This type of reaction to pain could be beneficial
to the animal due to reduced time needed to process the stimulus, thus leading to a faster
response.
One of the first researchers to report on the NWR was Sherrington (1910) who reported
on the NWR in cats and dogs whose spinal cord had been transected. In his experiments,
Sherrington electrically stimulated nerves and visually measured the changes in muscle length or
force that occurred after stimulation. Sherringtons studies (1910) showed that generally flexor
muscles throughout the hindlimb , which moved the limb towards the body, contracted, whereas
9

the extensor muscles that straightened the limb and opposed gravity relaxed. This general pattern
occurred irrespective of where the stimulus, thus supporting the categorical hypothesis.
However, Sherrington also pointed out that the patterns of muscle activation and relaxation
varied somewhat with stimulus location, which he termed local sign. The idea of local sign is
consistent with the continuous organization of the NWR. Therefore Sherringtons work
described both the categorical and continuous aspects of the NWR.
Later, Schouenborg and Kalliomaki (1990) studied the NWR in anesthetized rats by
monitoring electrical activity in the muscles of the leg. In response to mechanical stimuli, they
found that the area that showed the most electrical activity corresponded to the most sensitive
area of the nocireceptive field. Using the data that showed that the electrical activity changed to
account for the most sensitive area, Schouenborg and Kalliomaki inferred that the movement
also changed to account for the most sensitive area. In 1992, Schouenborg and Kalliomaki
repeated the experiment using spinalized rats and reported similar results as the study in 1990.
Schuouenborg and Kalliomaki (1992), using their data on electrical activity, tried to translate the
electrical activity into a model of movement. Thus they reported that when certain portions of
skin were stimulated by aversive stimuli, the muscles that withdrew the skin away from the
stimulus corresponded to the most sensitive area of the nocireceptive field, which would be
consistent with the continuous definition of the NWR. The major limitation of these studies was
that the researchers were measuring the activity of muscles but trying to predict the movement of
muscles. Such extrapolation is difficult because of the complexity of the biomechanics of the
limb.

10

To surmount the limitations of inferring movement from muscle activity, Cleland and
Bauer (2002) visually noted the direction of movement of the NWR in response to heat stimuli.
Their results showed that the NWR of the tail may not fit into either the continuous or
categorical definition of the NWR, but rather a hybrid continuous-categorical movement
strategy. Cleland and Bauer found that the withdrawal responses in the tail had two spatial
components: one directly away from the stimulus and the other in the ventral direction. However,
the dependence on stimulus location was weak.
In order to overcome the limitations of only focusing on one point on the tail, Bence et al.
(2009) used less restrained spinalized rats and looked at the complete movement trajectory of the
tail NWR movement. The tail of the rats was stimulated using heat stimuli from a laser and
movement of the entire tail was recorded using video. Results showed that responses were
directed ventral-laterally and were independent of stimulus location, which corresponded with
the results reported by Cleland and Bauer (2002). Although these results helped to clarify the
movement of the NWR of the tail, they did not necessarily relate to other parts of the body,
specifically the limbs.
Most recently, Davis (2008) focused on the NWR of the hindlimb of spinalized rats using
thermal stimuli of regions skin just above the ankle. With stimuli applied to eight locations
circumscribing the ankle, Davis found that the ankle tended to move inwards, forwards, and
upwards (medial, rostral, and dorsal) irrespective of the stimulus location, which supported the
categorical hypothesis; however, the major limitation of this research was that the responses
were substantially weaker than the responses when the foot was stimulated, making accurate
measurement difficult (Davis, 2008).
11

Specific Aims
In order to further explore the movement of the foot during the NWR, the goal of this
study in spinalized rats was to determine the direction and speed of the response of the foot to
stimuli applied to different locations on the foot. More specifically, the thermal stimuli was
applied to four points on the plantar surface of the foot, one point on the left side of the foot, one
point on the right side of the foot, and one point on the dorsal surface of the foot. The response
was quantified by analyzing high-speed video to determine the trajectory of the foot movements
in three dimensions. Based on the previous research in the tail of spinalized rats (Cleland &
Bauer, 2002; Bence et al., 2009) and in the foot of spinalized rats (Davis, 2008) which supported
the categorical hypothesis of the NWR, the hypothesis of this study was that the results reported
in this study would also support the categorical hypothesis of the NWR.

12

Methodology
A.

Animal Selection and Care

Adult male rats (mean 88.222.2 SD days and mean 323.841.7 SD g) were bred at

James Madison University from rats originally obtained from Harlan Laboratories (Indianapolis,
IN). Rats were given unrestricted food and water and were housed in 18x10x8 polypropylene
cages in a room with a 12-hour light/dark cycle. After the experiment was finished, rats were
euthanized with an overdose of sodium pentobarbital (200 mg/kg i.p.), approved by the Panel on
Euthanasia of the Veterinary Medical Association (Report of the AVMA, 2007). The
experimental protocol was approved by the James Madison University Institutional Animal Care
and Use Committee and conformed to federal requirements (National Council Guide, 1996) and
the guidelines of the International Association for the Study of Pain (Zimmerman, 1983).

B.

Sedation and Marking

Twenty-four hours before each experiment, the rat weight and date of birth were

recorded. The rat was then placed in a sealed acrylic cylinder connected to a gas source (Oxygen
(100%) mixed with halothane (1-5%)) and with an activated charcoal scavenger to absorb excess
halothane. After one to two minutes, or until the rat appeared sedated but breathing normally, the
rat was removed from the acrylic cylinder and given an intra-peritoneal (IP) injection of a
sodium pentobarbital(150 mg/kg ;Sigma-Aldrich Laboratories, St. Louis, MO)-saline solution

13

14

Figure 1. Tracking Points of the Left Hindlimb. This diagram shows each of the six
tracking points represented by a black dot. The points labeled by numbers 1-4 on the left panel
are on the lateral side of the foot and the points labeled by numbers 5 and 6 on the right panel are
on the plantar surface of the foot. The arrows point to the two tracking points that were used as
the center of movement.

Under anesthesia, the rats left leg was shaved closely with an electric razor (Oster #40
blade) up to and including the thigh, and its upper back was shaved up to 2 cm above the
shoulder blades and 4 cm below. The left leg was then marked for later tracking with two, 1 mm
black dots (Sharpie, 0.2 mm) on the outward-facing side of the foot. The plantar surface of the
foot parallel to the two previous dots was also marked with another two 1 mm black dots. These
points labeled by numbers 1 and 2 in Figure 1 were directly facing camera B and the points
labeled by numbers 5 and 6 in Figure 1 were directly facing camera A . Another one 1 mm
black dot was marked in the cavity of the ankle facing outwards and another one 1 mm black dot
was marked on the lower thigh 1.5 cm above the knee facing outwards (Figure 1). These points
are labeled by the numbers 3 and 4 in Figure 1 and directly face camera B The tracking points
that were used to track the center of movement for this report are marked with arrows.
C.

Spinalization

Directly after the markings were applied to the left leg and while the rat was anesthetized,
the rats T8-T9 thoracic spinal segments were surgically exposed by laminectomy and the dura
was opened. Two drops of a local anesthetic (4.4 x10-2 4% lidocaine hydrochloride, Roxane
Laboratories, Columbus, OH) were applied to the surface of the spinal cord to block injuryevoked action potentials that would occur during transection and potentially alter spinal cord
processing. Five minutes were allowed to pass before the spinal cord was severed using scissors
15

and scrapers and the spinalization was visually confirmed. The incision was closed using surgical
staples and the rat was allowed to recover for 24 hours in a cage with fully accessible food and
water. This extended period of time was allowed in order for the pentobarbital to wear off and
for the rat to recover from surgery.
D.

Experimental Apparatus Design

Scaffolding

Suspension Apparatus

Copper-Foam
Plate

B
A
Laser

Figure 2. Rat Suspension Apparatus. This diagram represents the suspension

apparatus that held the rat. Two copper plates with foam attached to them were placed on either
side of the rat to limit body movement. The tail was constrained with an acrylic tube to further
limit body movement. Camera A is shown facing the rear of the rat. Camera B is shown facing
the left, lateral side of the rat. The laser is shown below the rat.

16

The experiment was performed on a lab-created pipe scaffolding that suspended an

apparatus that held the rat in place. The suspended apparatus consisted of one 20 cm rod that
connected the apparatus perpendicularly to the platform, another 20 cm pole that held a cloth
sling (not shown in Figure 2), a clamp that was parallel to the top of the platform, and one arm
made up of interconnected rods on each side of the apparatus that held a copper plate with 3 cm
thick foam. The purpose of the copper plates with foam was to limit body movement. The
apparatus also included flexible rubber tubing, 15 cm long that had a 1.5 cm opening that could
accommodate the tail and also a hard plastic tube, 15 cm long that had a 2 cm opening that the
flexible rubber tubing could fit into. Its purpose was to minimize backward movement.
Right Side (Facing away from Camera B)

Left Side (Facing towards Camera B)

17

Figure 3. Cloth Sling. This diagram shows the left and right side of the cloth sling that
was used to hold the rat. The semi-circles at the corners depict the cutouts for each hind limb.
The horizontal dotted line that runs along the top of the sling depicts a sewed seam that was
placed over a rod. The vertical dotted line depicts the seam that was closed using safety pins to
prevent the rat from moving its head out of the sling.

The cloth sling was made of opaque cotton fabric with a large opening for each leg to
allow for free range of movement and a restricted opening at the front that allowed enough room
for the rat to breathe but not move its head through. The sling also had a loop that ran the length
of it that allowed it to be slipped onto the suspended apparatus.

Figure 4. Illumination Setup. This diagram depicts the illumination setup that consisted
of five fiber optic light sources and two CFL light sources. The fiber optic light sources are
depicted as boxes with two fiber optic tubes attached to them. The CFL light sources are
depicted as rods with black cylinders attached to them. Each CFL light source directly faces
either Camera A or Camera B.
18

Uniform illumination for video recording was provided by five, two-tube fiber optic light
sources (Dolan-Jenner Industries, Boxborough, MA). Four light sources were placed on the side
of the rat where camera B was located and they were setup in a line parallel with camera B. Each
flexible light was used in an alternating up-down pattern so that on each light source one light
was focused on the lowest part of the foot and the other light was focused slightly higher. This
arrangement provided uniform light on the left side of the left foot, including areas where the leg
might move. Another light source was placed directly beside camera A facing the plantar surface
of the left foot. One arm was focused on the lowermost part of the foot and the other was focused
slightly higher. This provided uniform light on the plantar surface of the left foot, including areas
where the leg might move.
Two 42 watt compact fluorescent lamps (CFL) were used with thin white cotton cloth
covering each light in order to disperse light uniformly. The purpose of these lamps was to
provide a bright background for each camera which would increase the contrast of the black dots.
One CFL light was attached to the platform and directly faced camera A, with the left leg in
between. Another CFL light was setup directly facing camera B, with the left leg in between.
Stimulation

19

E.

Stimulation

Figure 5. Stimulation Points. This diagram shows the stimulation points on the left foot.
Each stimulation point is marked by an X while some tracking points have been shown as black
dots. The stimulation points are differentiated using the letters A-H; however, these letters were
not marked on the foot.

20

Eight total points on the left foot and leg were stimulated (referred to as points A through
H). Points A through E lined up with the middle of the left foot. Point A was located 1 cm below
the heel. Point B was located directly between the two black dots on the plantar surface of the
left foot. Point C was located in the cavity 3mm below the black dot closest to the digits. Point D
was located on the pad directly below Point C. Point E was located on the skin of the distal
phalange of the middle digit. Point F was located directly between the black dots on the plantar
surface of the left foot; however, it was on the inwards-facing side of the foot. Point G was also
located directly between the black dots on the plantar surface of the left foot; however, it was on
the top of the foot. Point G was located directly between the black dots on the side of the left
foot facing camera B.
Each point was stimulated with a 15 watt, 980nm fiber-coupled laser diode (BWtek,
Wilmington, DE), which was operated by a foot pedal. Each point was stimulated at 6 watts
until there was a response visually. Stimuli that evoked responses in less than 1.5 seconds may
result in tissue damage, while stimuli that evoked responses in over 3 seconds sometimes evoked
a weak response. Therefore the intensity of the stimulus (range 5.0 -7.5 watts) was adjusted to
obtain a latency of 1.5-3 seconds. The circular stimulus area measured 1 mm in diameter.

F.

Camera Setup, Data Collection and Software

Movement was recorded by two, frame synchronized, high-speed video cameras

(RedLake imaging, San Diego, CA) at 250 fps with a shutter speed of 1/1000s. Each camera was
positioned 25 cm from the left leg with its aperture fully opened to allow the maximum amount
of light. At the beginning of every experiment a frame from each camera was taken with a ruler

21

included next to the foot for calibration. Video recordings were saved 200ms before and after the
onset of movement.
The video recordings were analyzed using ProAnalyst (XCitex, Cambridge, MA). The
onset of movement was visually determined and each tracking point was marked 50 frames
before the onset of movement. The points were then tracked through the movement until the end
of the recording. Of the points that were tracked, only the data from the point closest to the heel
on the plantar surface and the middle point on the later surface were used to approximate the
center of mass of the foot. Other markers were not analyzed for this report.
The tracked image data was then analyzed using custom routines written in MATLAB
software (Mathworks, Natick, MA). Using MATLAB, the two dimensional data from each
camera was combined to create a three dimensional trajectory of movement of the foot. A 1 mm
threshold from the origin was used to determine direction and speed of the initial movement. The
initial direction of movement was defined by the vector from the origin to the first point that
crossed the 1 mm threshold. The speed of movement was determined by measuring the distance
from the first point that crossed the 1 mm threshold and the point directly previous. To determine
whether the response direction or speed was based on stimulus location, statistics were computed
using SPSS (non-circular) and Orion (circular). ANOVAs with varying factors were used to
determine the effect of multiple stimulus location sites because they were often not located along
a continuous dimension. Significance was taken as p<0.05. All error bars are standard error of
the mean.

22

G.

Experimental Protocol
Twenty-four hours after spinalization, and immediately prior to the experiment the rats

bladder was manually emptied. The rat was then placed in the cloth sling, with the left and right
leg hanging outside the sling, and then the sling was placed in the experimental apparatus.
Surgical gauze was placed underneath the rats lower body to absorb any excess urine. The foam
attached to the copper on the right side of the body was placed directly against the body from the
rats tail to front limbs while allowing the rat to breathe normally. The foam attached to the
copper on the left side of the body was placed directly against the body from the rats left hip to
the front limbs, making sure not to obstruct the movement of the left leg or left hip while
allowing the rat to breath normally. The tail was then placed in the rubber tubing and the rubber
tubing was then slid inside the plastic tubing to reinforce it. The plastic tubing was held up with
the clamp attached to the experimental apparatus. The right leg was then moved parallel to the
body and kept in that position using white tape attached to the copper and foam. This was done
to limit the obstruction of camera Bs view. The rat was then allowed to acclimatize for five
minutes.
Three minutes passed between each stimulation and a total of eight stimulations
(corresponding to points A through H) made up one set of trials. A total of five sets of trials were
done following the same sequence of points for each rat.

23

Results
From the data that was analyzed it was possible to determine that there were two
characteristic movements that made up the NWR in response to a heat stimulus applied to the
surface of the foot. The initial movement tended to be almost purely rostral-medial, or forwards
and inwards, with no dorsal, or upwards, component. This initial movement occurred in the
majority of the trials of all six experiments. The second movement, that followed a pause after
the first movement, did not occur in all trials, however when it did occur it was rostral-medial
with a distinct dorsal component.
Therefore, the following results are presented in two parts: the first section focuses on the
initial rostral-medial movement and the second section presents those instances when a second
movement followed the initial movement.

24

Section One: Results from the initial movement

The sequence of video frames in Figure 6 was taken from one trial and shows a typical
response of the left hindlimb in response to a heat stimulus applied to plantar surface of the foot.
In the second frame the foot moves rostrally and in the fourth frame the foot moves medially.
These two frames, although captured by two different cameras, occurred at the same point in
time thus showing a rostral-medial movement.

Figure 6. Video Frame Sequence of Initial Movement. Frames 1 and 2 shows the view
of the plantar surface of the left foot from camera A. Frames 3 and 4 show the view of the lateral
surface of the left foot from camera B. Frames 1 and 3 show the original position of the foot at
200ms (marked by a red point) before the onset of movement. Frame 2 shows the initial
25

distance (mm)

distance (mm)

distance (mm)

movement (marked by a green triangle) in the lateral-medial and dorsal-ventral directions. Frame
4 shows the initial movement (marked by a green triangle) in the caudal-rostral and dorsalventral directions.

lateral-medial

0
-4
4

caudal-rostral

0
-4

dorsal-ventral
0

200

400

time (ms)

Figure 7. Direction of Movement in Three Separate Dimensions. The plots represent

the movement of the center of the foot over time. The top panel represents the movement in the
lateral-medial directions. The middle panel represents the movement in the caudal-rostral
direction. The bottom panel represent the movement in the dorsal-ventral direction. The dotted
line represents the onset of movement.
The movement of the tracked points in two-dimensions was then combined to
calculate a three-dimensional trajectory of movement of the paw. Figure 7 shows a typical
response of the left hindlimb in response to an aversive heat stimulus applied to the plantar
surface of the foot (same as Figure 6). The onset of movement is indicated by the dotted line.
26

The trajectory of the approximate center of mass of the foot in 3-dimensional rat coordinates is
shown in Figure 7. The initial movement shown in Figure 7 moves medially and rostrally with
no dorsal-ventral component.

caudal - rostral (mm)

-2

-4
-4

-2
0
2
lateral - medial (mm)

-4

-2
0
2
dorsal - ventral (mm)

caudal - rostral (mm)

-2

-4

Figure 8. Direction of Movement in Two Dimensions. The plots represent the

movement of the foot over time in two dimensions. The top panel represents the movement in
the caudal-rostal and lateral-medial directions. The bottom panel represents the movement in the
caudal-rostal and dorsal-ventral directions. Time(4ms) is represented as the distance between
27

points. The 1mm diameter circles represent the approximate movement threshold used to
measure direction and speed of the initial response .

Figure 8 shows the trajectory of movement in the caudal-rostral/lateral-medial (top panel)

and caudal-rostral/dorsal-ventral (bottom panel) planes (same trial as Figs 6 and 7 In the top
panel, the initial movement is in the rostral-medial direction. In the bottom panel, the movement
is almost purely rostral with no dorsal-ventral component. The first point to exceed the 1mm
threshold was used to calculate the direction and speed of the initial response. In order to
determine if the response direction depended on stimulus location, the data from all six

Response direction (caudal-rostral/lateral-medial)

experiments was analyzed.

80

60

40

20

0
1

Stimulus location

28

Figure 9. Average Response Direction (Caudal/Rostral & Lateral/Medial).This graph represents

the average response direction in the caudal-rostral and lateral-medial plane for each stimulus location.
The averages are based on six experiments. Stimulus locations 1-8 correspond to stimulus locations A-H.
(P> 0.05 ANOVA)

+90

+/-180

-90

Figure 10. Rat Coordinate Plane in Two Dimensions (Caudal/Rostral & Lateral/Medial). This
diagram represents the rat coordinate plane in the lateral-medial and caudal-rostral directions.

Figure 9 shows the direction of movement at each stimulus location using data from all six
experiments. The direction of movement did not depend on stimulus location (P= 0.05, ANOVA). The
mean direction was mostly rostral (64.40 2.63 SD).

29

Response direction (caudal-rostral/ventral-dorsal)

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1
A

2
B

3
C

4
D

5
E

6
F

7
G

8
H

Stimulus location

Figure 11. Average Response Direction (Dorsal/Ventral & Caudal/Rostral). This graph
represents the average response direction in the caudal-rostral and dorsal-ventral directions at each
stimulus location. The averages are based on six experiments. Stimulus locations 1-8 correspond to
stimulus locations A-H. (P= >0.05, ANOVA)

90

-90
180

Figure 12. Rat Coordinate Plane ( Dorsal/Ventral & Caudal/Rostral ). This diagram represents
the rat coordinate plane in the lateral-medial and dorsal-ventral directions.

30

Figure 11 shows another view of the initial direction of movement, except now in the
caudal-rostral and dorsal-ventral planes. Figure 11 shows the direction of movement at each
stimulus location using data from all six experiments. Figure11 shows the direction of movement
at each stimulus location using data from all six experiments. The direction of movement did not
depend on stimulus location (P= >0.05, ANOVA). The mean direction was mostly rostral (75.66
3.48 SD).

Response Speed (mm/s)

60

40

20

0
1
A

2
B

3
C

4
D

5
E

6
F

7
G

8
H

Stimulus location

Figure 13. Average Response Speed. This graph represents the average response speed
at each stimulus location. The averages are based on six experiments. Stimulus locations 1-8
correspond to stimulus locations A-H. Each black dot on the plantar surface of the paw
represents a stimulus location.

31

Figure 13 shows the speed of response at each stimulus location using data from
all six experiments. The direction of movement did not depend on stimulus location (P= 0.05
ANOVA). However, when only stimulus locations 1-5 were examined, there appeared to be a
pattern (Figure 13). Stimulus locations 1-5 corresponded to the five stimulus locations on the
plantar surface of the foot . The response speed decreased as the stimulus location moved from
1-5. The response speed at stimulus locations 1-5 did show a dependence on stimulus location (P
= 0.01, Linear Regression). What this showed was that as the response moved into the stimulus,
the response weakened (Figure 13).

32

Section Two: Results from the second movement

This sequence of video frames shown in Figure 14 was taken from one trial and shows a
typical response of the left hindlimb in response to heat stimulus applied to plantar surface of the
foot. In the second frame the foot moves medially and in the fourth frame the foot moves rostraldorsally. These two frames, although captured by two different cameras, occurred at the same
point in time thus showing a rostral-medial-dorsal movement.

33

Figure 14. Video Frame Sequence of Second Movement. Frames 1 and 2 shows the
view of the plantar surface of the left foot from camera A. Frames 3 and 4 show the view of the
lateral surface of the left foot from camera B. Frames 1 and 3 show the original position of the
foot at 200 ms (marked by a red point) before the onset of movement. Frame 2 shows the second
movement (marked by a green triangle) in the lateral-medial and dorsal-ventral directions. Frame
4 shows the initial movement (marked by a green triangle) in the caudal-rostral and dorsalventral directions.

100

frequency (%)

80

60

40

20

1 2 3 4 5 67 8

1 234 5678

12 34567 8

12 34567 8

rostral
(vs caudal)

medial
(vs lateral)

dorsal
oscillations
(vs ventral) (vs no oscillations)

Figure 15. Frequency of Movement. This graph represents the frequency of movement
in the rostral, medial, and dorsal directions along with the frequency of oscillations for each
stimulus location. The frequency at each stimulus location is an average of the results of all six
experiments. (P=0.38, 0.74, 0.50,0.09 ANOVA for rostral, medial, dorsal, and oscillations,
respectively)

34

Figure 15 shows frequency of movement (rostral, medial, dorsal, and oscillations,

respectively) at each stimulus location using data from all six experiments. Figure 16 shows that
the second movement was rostral about 84% (mean 84.34%) of the time and did not significantly
depend on stimulus location (P=0.38, ANOVA). Similarly, neither medial, dorsal, nor
oscillations significantly depended on stimulus location (P > 0.05, ANOVA). Taken together,
these results show that although the secondary response varied in direction, the response
direction did not significantly depend on stimulus location.

35

Discussion
The results have shown that when a heat stimulus is applied to the surface of the foot,
there are two possible movements that can occur. The initial movement, which occurs in almost
every instance where a heat stimulus is applied, tends to move the foot almost purely in the
rostral and medial (forward and inward) directions with no dorsal or ventral (up or down)
movement. The second movement does not occur as consistently as the initial movement,
however when it does occur, the movement is stronger and in the dorsal, or upward, direction.
For both the initial and secondary movement, however, the response direction in either case did
not significantly depend on stimulus location. In terms of response speed, the speed was stronger
when the stimulus was opposed to the rostral-medial response direction; for example, stimuli
applied to the rostral (front) portion of the foot evoked weaker responses than stimuli applied to
the caudal portion (heel) of the foot.
Categorical versus Continuous Hypothesis of the NWR
The main focus of this study was to determine whether the categorical or continuous
hypothesis of the NWR would be most supported. The work done by Schouenborg and
Kalliomaki (1992), in which reflex actions of cutaneous stimulation were assessed by EMG
recording, provided support for the continuous hypothesis. In contrast, the findings from
Sherrington (1910), Davis (2009) and those reported here, support the categorical hypothesis in
that the response direction was independent of stimulus location. Further, both Sherrington
(1910) and Davis (2009) found the preferred direction of response was toward the body.

36

The difference in findings may be explained in two potential ways. First, Sherrington
(1910) did report local sign, in which stimuli at different locations resulted in slightly different
patterns of muscle activity, and in our study response speed did depend on stimulus location.
Thus, it is possible there are simultaneously both a large categorical and a smaller
continuous response. Second, Schouenborg and Kalliomaki (1990) did not directly study
movement. It is possible that although muscles show different electrical activity at different
stimulus locations, the end result of any combination of muscle activation in the hindlimb is
movement in one specific direction.
Relating Results to Previous Research in the Tail
Previous research in the tail of a spinalized rat has also reported results that have
supported the categorical hypothesis; however it was largely unknown whether these results
could be related to movements in other parts of the body, specifically the limbs. More
specifically, Cleland and Bauer (2002) described a withdrawal response with two spatial
components: one large component in the ventral-lateral direction that was independent of
stimulus locations and the other a smaller component dependent on stimulus location. Similar
results were obtained by Weiss (2008) and Bence et al. (2009) using different measures of
response (isometric force and movements, respectively).
Relating Results to Previous Research in the Foot
The major limitation of the study conducted by Davis (2008) was that the responses were
substantially weaker than the responses of the foot to a heat stimulus and that the stimulus
locations differed from those in this study. Previous research of the foot in response to heat

37

stimuli applied just above the ankle was conducted by Davis (2008) who found that response
direction was not dependent on stimulus location and that the predominant movement direction
was rostral-medial-dorsal. As described above, Daviss results are fully consistent with the
results of this study even though he stimulated at a much different location on the leg, which
further supports the idea that the NWR direction is independent of stimulus location. Daviss
results do not mention an initial movement without a dorsal-ventral component; however, what
Davis describes as the initial movement of the foot is the same as what this study describes as the
second movement of the foot. Daviss responses were much weaker than the responses found in
this study and it is possible that Davis may have only been able to elicit the second movement
due to the extremely small magnitude of the response overall. This idea is support is support by
Schouenborg and Kalliomaki (1992), who reported that stimuli to foot evoked greater responses
than stimuli to the leg.
Relating Results to Intact Rats
A study was conducted by Wyatt (2010) which used the exact same stimulation locations
as this study; however, Wyatts study focused on the response direction in response to a heat
stimulus in intact rats. By comparing the results reported in this study to those of Wyatt (2010), it
may be possible to determine what role, if any, the brain plays in transforming the sensory
information from nociceptors into reflex movement. The results of the NWR of the foot of intact
rats differ significantly with the results of this study in spinalized rats. The results shown by
Wyatt (2010) showed that there were at least three components to the response, with a second
and main component highly dependent on stimulus location. Further, reflex responses in the
intact rat were much faster than reported here. The discrepancy between Wyatts results and the
38

results of this study may show that the NWR is not a purely spinal reflex and in intact rats, the
brain plays a role in the spatial transformation of sensory data in the NWR.
Implications in Future Research
The consistency between components of movement in the tail and the foot show that in
the future it may be possible to use the tail to acceptably model the movements of other parts of
the body, specifically the limbs. The consistency between the response direction of the foot
,although different stimulation locations were used, means that in the future it may be possible
to elicit the same NWR using other parts of the foot or leg. Each of the studies of the tail and the
foot, including this one, have shown either a weak or lack of dependence of response direction
on stimulus location which means that the categorical hypothesis has increasing support and
future studies may support this as a widespread principle of motor organization.

39

Works Cited
AVMA Guidelines on Euthanasia (Formerly Report of the AVMA Panel on Euthanasia) June
2007.
Barr ML and Kiernan JA. (2004). The Human Nervous System : An Anatomical Viewpoint. 6th
Ed. Harper & Row.
Bear MF, Connors BW, Paradiso MA. (2006). Neuroscience: Exploring The Brain. 3rd Ed.
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Bence N., Young GS, Tongen AL, Cleland CL. (2009). Kinematic tail withdrawal strategy of the
nociceptive withdrawal response in spinalized rats. Society for Neuroscience. Abstract
39: 271.11
Bizzi E, Mussa-Ivaldi FA, Giszster S. (1991). Computations underlying the execution of
movement: A biological perspective. Science 253:87-291
Clarke RW, Harris J. (2004). The organization of motor responses to noxious stimuli. Brain
Research Reviews 46:163-172
Cleland CL, Bauer RE. (2002). Spatial transformations in the withdrawal response of the tail in
intact and spinalized rats. Journal of Neuroscience.22:5265-70

Cleland CL, Gebhart (1997). Principles of nociception and pain, in Expert Pain Management

Creed, R. S., Denny-Brown, D., Eccles, J. C., Liddell, E. G. T. & Sherrington, C. S. (1932).
Reflex Activity of the Spinal Cord. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
40

Davis, H. (2008). Dependence of the nociceptive withdrawal response of the hind limbs on
stimulus location in spinalized rats. Unpublished Results.
Del Toro AN, Berardino MC, Bilberryh DS, Cleland CL. (2006). Transition between body and
tail withdrawal movements in response to tail stimulation in Long Tail Grass lizards is
blended and graded. Society for Neuroscience. Abstract 36: 251.3
Dielenberg RA, McGregor IS. (2001). Defensive behavior in rats towards predatory odors: a
review. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews. 25:597-609
Edman JD, Day JF, Walker ED. (1984). Field confirmation of laboratory observations on the
differential antimosquito behavior of herons. The Condor. 86:91-92
Hultborn, H. (2006). Spinal reflexes, mechanisms and concepts: From Eccles to Lundberg and
beyond. Progress in Neurobiology. 78:215-232
Leem, JW, Willis, WD, Chung JM. (1993) Cutaneous Sensory Receptors in the Rat Foot. Journal
of Neurophysiology. 69 : 1684-1699
Lewis JE, Kristan Jr. WB. (1998). Quantitative Analysis of a Directed Behavior in the Medicinal
Leech: Implications for Organizing Motor Output. J Neurosci. 18:1571-1582
Nagy I, Rang H. (1999). Noxious heat activates all capsaicin-sensitive and also a sub-population
of capsaicin-insensitive dorsal root ganglion neurons. Journal of Neuroscience. 88:995997

41

National Research Council (1996): Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. Institute
of Laboratory Animal Resources, Commission on Life Sciences, National Research
Council, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
Palka J, Babu KS. (2004). Toward the physiological analysis of defensive responses of
scorpions. Journal of Comparative Physiology. 55:286-298
Schouenborg J, Kalliomki J.(1990). Functional organization of the nociceptive withdrawal
reflexes. I. Activation of hindlimb muscles in the rat. Experimental Brain Research.
83:67-78.
Schouenborg J, Holmberg H, Weng HR. (1992). Functional organization of the nociceptive
withdrawal reflexes. II. Changes of excitability and receptive fields after spinalization in
the rat.
Sherrington CS. (1910). Flexion-reflex of the limb, crossed extension-reflex, and reflex stepping
and standing. Journal of Physiology. 40:28-121
Tam KW, DiBenedetto NF, Jobson JA, Setanka R, Wells C, Hampton AR, Thorp BD, Opitz AE,
Jones NS, Mansfield CJ, Latham WK, Cleland CL.(2005). Patterns of tail withdrawal
responses to heat stimuli in lizards. Society for Neuroscience. Abstract 35: 627.6
Wyatt, L. (2010). Spatial transformations in the Nociceptive Withdrawal Reflex in the Hind
Limb of Intact, Unanesthetized Rats. Unpublished Results.
Zimmermann, M. (1983). Ethical guidelines for investigations of experimental pain in conscious
animals. Pain 16:109110.
42