ANATOMY In lecture you learned that the migrations of the head musculature set u

Question

ANATOMY

In lecture you learned that the migrations of the head musculature set up specific muscle planes in the head and neck. The second arch is the most superficial plane, the first arch and lateral head mesoderm musculature form a plane beneath the second arch, the posterior occipital and cervical somitic muscles form a third plane deep to the planes mentioned above, and the third and fourth arch muscles with those from the first occipital somite form the deepest plane within the wall of the cranial end of the gut tube. However, if you study the derivatives of these embryonic anlagen there are some contradictions to the pattern. One of these contradictions is that the second arch (most superficial layer) joins with the fourth arch (deepest layer) at the pterygomandibular raphe where the dorsal aspect of the buccinator muscle forms a raphe (tendinous intersection) with the superior constrictor muscle (see illustration). Clearly explain this dichotomy to the muscle pattern of the head and neck. Your explanation must be supported by anatomical and developmental evidence.

Explanation / Answer

A musculoskeletal system with more muscles than there are motions could be programmed in alternative ways to produce a single movement. In this case, the muscles would have the potential to be maximally responsive in multiple directions rather than responding preferentially in a single direction. To determine the response patterns of muscles in the head-neck motor system, the simultaneous activation of four of the 23 neck muscles acting on the head was recorded with both surface and intramuscular electrodes. Fifteen human subjects were tested during an isometric head stabilization task. When the EMG response patterns were plotted, each muscle demonstrated a preferred direction of activation. This preferred activation direction was consistent in all of the subjects for three of the muscles tested. The fourth muscle, splenius, was preferentially activated during neck flexion in half of the subjects and during neck extension in the other half. Increasing the force parameters of the task suggested a linear relationship between force and the EMG output in the preferred response directions. Responses in the nonpreferred directions were produced by a nonlinear change in EMG activation of the muscle. This finding could have implications for theories of how reciprocal activation and cocontraction patterns of response are elicited. Results from this study, that the CNS programs neck muscles to respond in specific orientations rather than generating an infinite variety of muscle patterns, are in agreement with our findings in the cat.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse A
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.