Experimental demonstration of the tomatotopic organization in the Soprano (Cantatrix sopranica L.)

Georges Perec
Laboratoire de physiologie
Faculté de médecine Saint-Antoine
Paris, France

Sommaire:

Démonstration expérimentale d'une organisation tomatotopique chez la Cantatrice.

As observed at the turn of the century by Marks & Spencer (1899), who first named the ``yelling reaction' (YR), the striking effects of tomato throwing on Sopranoes have been extensively described. Although numerous behavioral (Zeeg & Puss, 1931; Roux & Combaluzier, 1932; Sinon et al., 1948), pathological (Hun & Deu, 1960), comparative (Karybb & Szyla, 1973) and follow-up (Else & Vire, 1974) studies have permitted a valuable description of these typical responses, neuroanatomical, as well as neurophysiological data, are, in spite of their number, surprisingly confusing. In their henceforth late twenties' classical demonstrations, Chou & Lai (1927 a, b, c, 1928 a, b, 1929 a, 1930) have ruled out the hypothesis of a pure facio-facial nociceptive reflex that has been advanced for many years by a number of authors (Mace & Doyne, 1912; Payre & Tairnelle, 1916; Sornette & Billevayzé, 1925). Since that time, numerous observations have been made that have tried to decipher the tangling puzzle as well as the puzzling tangle of the afferent and/or efferent sides of the YR and led to the rather chaotic involvement of numberless structures and paths: trigeminal (Loewenstein et al., 1930), bitrigeminal (Von Aitick, 1940), quadritrigeminal (Van der Deder, 1950), supra-, infra-, and inter-trigeminal (Mason & Ragoun, 1960) afferents have been likely pointed out as well as macular (Zakouski, 1954), saccular (Bortsch, 1955), utricular (Malosol, 1956), ventricular (Tarama, 1957), monocular (Zubrowska, 1958), binocular (Chachlik, 1959-1960), triocular (Strogonoff, 1960), auditive (Balalaika, 1515) and digestive (Alka-Seltzer, 1815) inputs. Spinothalamic (Attou & Ratathou, 1974), rubrospinal (Maotz & Toung, 1973), nigro-suiatal (Szentagothai, 1972), reticular (Pompeiano et al., 1971), hypothalamic (Hubel & Wiesel, 1970), mesolimbic (Kuffler, 1969) and cerebellar (High & Low, 1968) pathways have been vainly searched out for a tentative explanation of the YR organization and almost every part of the somesthesic (Pericoloso & Sporgersi, 1973), motor (Ford, 1930), commissural (Gordon & Bogen, 1974) and associative (Einstein et al., 1974) cortices have been found responsible for the progressive building-up of the response although, up-to-now, no decisive demonstration of both the input and output of the YR programming has been convincely advanced.

Recent observations by Unsofort & Tchetera pointing out that ``the more you throw tomatoes on Sopranoes, the more they yell' and comparative studies dealing with the gasp-reaction (Otis & Pifre, 1964), hiccup (Carpentier & Fialip, 1964), cat purring (Remmers & Gautier, 1972), HM reflex (Vincent et al., 1976), ventriloquy (McCulloch et al., 1964), shriek, scream, shrill and other hysterical reactions (Sturm & Drang, 1973) provoked by tomato as well as cabbages, apples, cream tarts, shoes, buts and anvil throwing (Harvar & Mercy, 1973) have led to the steady assumption of a positive feedback organization of the YR based upon a semilinear quadristable multi-switching interdigitation of neuronal sub-networks functioning en desordre (Beulott et al., 1974). Although this hypothesis seems rather seductive, it lacks anatomical and physiological foundations and we therefore decide to explore systematically the internal incremental or decremental organization of the YR, allowing a tentative anatomic model.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Preparation

Experiments were carried out on 107 female healthy Sopranoes (Cantatrix sopranica L.) furnished by the Conservatoire national de Musique, and weighing 94-124 kg (mean weight: 101 kg). Halothane anesthesia was utilized during the course of tracheotomy, fixation in the Horsley-Clarke, and major operative procedures. 5 % procaine was injected into skin margins and pressure points. Animals were then immobilized with gallamine triethyiodide (40 mg/kg/hr) and normocapnia was maintained by appropriate artificial ventilation. Spinal cord transections were performed at L³/T² levels, thus eliminating blood pressure variations and adrenaline secretion induced by tomato throwing (Giscard d'Estaing, 1974). The fact that the animals were not suffering from pain was shown by their constant smiling throughout the experiments. Internal temperature was maintained at 38 °C ± 4 °F by means of three electrically drived boiling kettles.

Stimulation

Tomatoes (Tomato rungisia vulgaris) were thrown by an automatic tomatothrower (Wait & See, 1972) monitored by an all-purpose laboratory computer (DID/92/85/P/331) operated on-line. Repetitive throwing allowed up to 9 projections per sec, thus mimicking the physiological conditions encountered by Sopranoes and other Singers on stage (Tebaldi, 1953). Care was taken to avoid missed projections on upper and/or lower limbs, trunk & buttocks. Only tomatoes affecting faces and necks were taken into account.

Control experiments were made with other projectiles, as apple cores, cabbage runts, hats, roses, pumpkins, bullets, and ketchup (Heinz, 1952).

Recording

Unit activity was recorded through glasstungsten semi-macroelectrodes located au-petit-bonheur, according to the methods of Zyszytrakyczywsz-Sekrâwszkiwcz (1974). Spike recognition was performed by audiomonitoring: every time a unit discharge was heard, it was carefully photographed, tapped, displayed on a monograph and, after integration, on a polygraph. Statistical evaluation of the results was made using a tennis like algorithm (Wimbledon, 1974), that is, every time a structure responds up to win the game, it was recognized as YR-related.

Histology

At the end of the experiments, Sopranoes were perfused with olive oil, and 10 % GlennFiddish, and incubated at 421 °C in 15 % orange juice during 47 hours. Frozen 2 cm unstained sections were mounted into delta-strawberry sherbet and observed under light and heavy microscopy. Histological verifications confirmed that all the electrodes were located in the brain except four that were found in cauda equina and filum terminale and disclosed from statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Stereotaxic explorations of brains during tomato throwing showed that most of the areas respond differently to the tomesthetic stimulation. As can be seen from table one, where the results are summarized, three (3) distinct areas gave definite, unambiguous and constant responses: the nucleus anterior reticularis thalami pars lateralis (NARTpl), or nucleus of Pesch (Pesch, 1876; Poissy, 1880; Jeanpace & Desmeyeurs, 1932), the anterior portion of the tractus leguminosus (apTL), lying 3.5 mm above the obex and 4 mm right of the tentorium and the dorsal part of the so-called ``musical sulcus' (scMS) of the left hemisphere (Donen & Kelly, 1956). It is of interest to notice that, if the left hemisphere was kept for analysis, the right hemisphere was left.

For the rest of the paper see Biochimica Biophysica Acta, August 1975, pp. 278 ff. or go here.