Document KRNRayyOZZKrnwN47gz8q1ZVQ

Haskell Laboratory Newark, Delaware August 3, 1965 Sr. Sven 0# Ellasson Department of Neurology Washington University School of Medicine 660 South Kingshlghway .Saint Louis, Missouri Saar Sr. Sllassont First, and foremost., w@ want to thank you for your help and interest in the problems we are having measuring nerve conduction veloeitiea. Our first experiments on treats rate sere done the week before last and I wanted to analyse our results before answering your letter of July 20 so that m would have a clearer picture of what we had been able to accomplish. Briefly, m tested i? nerves - 16 from control and 31 from rats treated for three months. Our measurements indicate that we still need to improve our techniques but our average conduc tion velocities for all the nerves approach these reported by you for noxml rats in your article ''Nerve Conduction Changes in Experimental Diabetes.." However our standard deviations are., we think, much too large* emitting measurements obtained when the conduction distance was 0$ft cm, our results aret \ Conduction Distance - .m(X5 nerves) Inflveecltoiocinty Peak Velocity 69 *m * 6*31 UPS *1.22 - >*3t 70.52 * 7.27 UPS 66*SO * H.31 1 have not distinguished between nerves from control and treated animals because we did not observe any effect attributable to treatment, which did not surprise us. A fairly exhaustive analysis of tbs results indicate that conduction distance was a highly significant factor in conduction velocityj this is why x omitted the lower velocities (eve, $3.8 MP3) obtained when the conduction distance waa 0.S& . We suspect the Influence of the shock artifact in this effect of conduction distance and our physicist, Paul x* Smith, dr., has obtained Bsapanen's articles and is working on the problem. Interestingly enough, neither the time taken to chloroform the rats nor that needed by the N37523 I&% Sven Q>, kliaseon * it * August S', lp6 pathologitta before presenting us with ths hindquarter, appeared to have & dofinite offoot on conduction velocities. Probably more important was the tint X took to dissect the nerve mod photograph its response! . He do have two further questions. 1* In your letter you advise & different type of stimulus .isolator* Sines our grass S stimulator has a built-in isolation unit, should ws insert an additional unit between stimulator and nerve or should m short-cut tha unit in tbs dressf 2* Would you advise plating the stimulating electrodes closer than 2 mt the distaste between those used In the presently reported ex^riisehts? In the meantime we are planning changes in the handling of the nerves which we now know we may have time forj these changes X hope will further reduce our discrepancies* ^banking you again for your interest* Sincerely yours. Mary * H&xfield, Ph.D. Physiologist MEiydyb J '.V c DUP050044064