Morales MJJ, Solis OH, Ayala GF

Language: Spanish
References: 19
Page: 22-26
PDF size: 75.98 Kb.

Text Extraction

The biological evolution is the historical process of transformation of some species in other descending species (macroevolution), and it includes the extinction of the great majority of the species that have existed. These changes have involved, not only the changes in ways and habits of life of the different groups of animals (microevolution), but rather also the disappearance, modification and change of some structures (Denton 1986)
During the evolution of the terrestrial vertebrates they happened important changes in the outlying and central structures of the auditory system.
The capacity to hear provided to means to rake preys and to escapes from the depredators. Later developments qualified the animals to uses it in combination with the apparatus phon-articulator like half essential for the communication
In this work an electrophysiological-comparative boarding was made using the technique of the early auditory provoked potentials on the phylogeny of the audition in 4 species of terrestrial vertebrates. Those subjects of study were amphibious of the species Frog catesbiana (10 amphibians). Reptils of the specie Sceloporus torquatus (10 reptils). Likewise 12 birds of the species Gallus domesticus. And 12 mammals (guinea pigs) of the species Celobias porcellus of the bioterio of the INCH. For the registration of electrophysiological of the auditory road you uses a computer for Brainstem auditory Evoked Potentials (BAEP) model Racia it marks APE-78 In this work they were potential provoked auditory of the cerebral shaft in the four species studied inside the first 10 ms that you/they explain the activity of the different structures that you/they intervene in the generation of the early auditory response.
You can consider that the differences found in the latencies and the morphology the waves generated in the different nuclei of the Brainstem auditory of all the vertebrates depend on the integrity of the cerebral shaft, of the temperature of the environment in the poiquilotermos and of the different structures that intervene in the decoding and code of the auditory stimulus, as well as of the neurotransmisores involved in the transmission of the auditory stimuli. Likewise it is considered that the succession of present waves in the BAEP represents a succession of the analysis of the stimulus in the different levels of the cerebral shaft and that the observed answer through the waves in relation to the latency, width and morphology of the BAEP will depend from the evolutionary scale to which belongs the vertebrate in study.
On the other hand, in spite of the effort that was made to compare the auditory answers of the cerebral shaft through a modern tool, non invasiva, and reliable as they are the BAEP in these four species of terrestrial vertebrates they are many questions to answer due to that limited of working with a single species representative of each class.

REFERENCES

1. Corwin, J.T., Bullock, T. H. and Schwitzer, J.1982. The auditory brain stem response in five vertebrate classes. Electroenceph. clin. Neurophysiol. 54: 629-641.

2. Chambers R., Matthies M., y Scott K. 1989. Correlations between various measure of head size and auditory brainstem responses latencies. Electroenceph.. Clin.neurophysiol 35: 126-138.

3. Denton M, 1986. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Bethesda, Maryland: Adler and Adler, , 368 págs..

4. Harris G.G., y Bergeux W.V. 1962. Evidence that the lateral line organ respond to water displacement. J. acoust. Soc. Amer. 34: 1831-1841.

5. Irving R. y Harrison J.M. 1967. Superior olivary complexand audition: A comparative study. J. comp. Neurology. 130: 77-86

6. Jewetz, D.L. 1970. Volume conducted potentials in response to auditory stimuly as detected by averaging in cat. Electroencep.clin.neurophysiol., 28: 609-618.

7. Moller A.R., Jannetta P.J. 1982. Auditory evoked potentials recorded intracranially from the brain stem in man. Exp. Neurol. 78: 144-157

8. Morales JJ., Poblano A., Mujica ME., Montes de Oca E. 1995. Potenciales evocados auditivos de tallo cerebral en Rana catesbiana. An. ORL. Mex. Vol 40, No 1: 9-12.

9. Musiek FE, y Baran JA. 1986. Neuroanatomy, Neurophysiology and central auditory assesment. Part I: Brain stem. Ear and Hear, 7: 207-219.

10. Overbeck W. G. Church M. 1992. Effects of tone burts frecuency and intensity on the auditory brainstem response (ABR) from albino and pigment rats. Hear. Res. 59: 129-137.

11. Regan D. 1975. Recent advances in electrical recording from the human brain. Nature 253: 401-407.

12. Rosenhall U. 1971: Morphological patterns of the organ of Corti in the Birds . Arch. Ohr. 200: 42-63.

13. Rusell J.J. 1976. Amphibian lateral line receptors. In frog neurobiology. Llinas R. Precht W.Springer Verlage. Berlin. Hidelberg Germany. 513-550.

14. Sachs MB. 1964. Characteristics of primary auditory neurons in the green frog. M. S. Thesis Cambrige, Mass. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

15. Sarnat H.B, y Netsky M.G. 1976. Sistema de la línea lateral, vestibular y acústico: Percepción vibratoria tactíl. En: Evolución del sistema nervioso. H Blume Ediciones Madrid. Seaman R. 1991. Method to record evoked potentials from eight nerve. Hearing Research. 51: 301-306

16. Sehmsdorff J. 1966. The primate superior olivary complex. Anat.Rec. 154: 421-422

17. Smith Z. 1981. Organization and development of brain stem auditory nuclei of the chicken: dendritic development in N. Laminaris. J. Comp. Neurol. 203: 309-333

18. Starr A., y Hamilton A.E. 1976. Correlation between confirmed sites of neurological lesions and abnormalities of far-field auditory brainstem responses. Electroencephal. Clin neurophysiol. 41: 595-608.

19. Starr A. 1978. Sensory evoked potentials in clinical disorders of the nervous system. Ann Rev Neurosci.1: 103-127,