It has been shown that in patients in whom the central stump of the hypoglossal nerve has been anastomosed to the peripheral stump of a lesioned facial nerve, supraorbital nerve stimulation can elicit a short-latency reflex (12.5+/-0.6 ms; mean+/-S.D.) in facial muscles similar to the R1 disynaptic blink reflex response, but not followed by an R2 blink reflex component46. Thus in addition to replacing the facial neurons at peripheral synapses, these hypoglossal nerves contribute to a trigemino-hypoglossal reflex. The aim of this work was to study the type of reflex activities which can be elicited in both facial and tongue muscles by electrical stimulation of cutaneous (supraorbital nerve) or mucosal (lingual nerve) trigeminal (V) afferents in normal subjects. The results show that although stimulation of cutaneous V1 afferents elicits the well-known double component (R1-R2) blink reflex response in the orbicularis oculi muscles, it does not produce any detectable reflex response in the genioglossus muscle, even during experimental paradigms designed to facilitate the reflex activity. Conversely, stimulation of mucosal V3 afferents can elicit a single reflex response of the R1 type in the genioglossus muscle but not in the orbicularis oculi muscles, even during experimental paradigms designed to facilitate the reflex activity. These data are discussed in terms of two similar but separate circuits for the R1 responses of cutaneous (blink reflex) and mucosal (tongue reflex) origins. They suggest that in patients with hypoglossal-facial (XII-VII) nerve anastomosis, the short-latency trigemino-'hypoglossal-facial' reflex of the R1 blink reflex type observed in facial muscles following supraorbital nerve stimulation could be due to changes in synaptic effectiveness of the central connectivity within the principal trigeminal nucleus where both cutaneous and mucosal trigeminal afferents project.
Copyright 1998 Elsevier Science B.V.