Ketamine, propofol, and the EEG: A neural field analysis of HCN1-mediated interactions

Ketamine and propofol are two well-known, powerful anesthetic agents, yet at first sight this appears to be their only commonality. Ketamine is a dissociative anesthetic agent, whose main mechanism of action is considered to be N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) antagonism; whereas propofol is a general anesthetic agent, which is assumed to primarily potentiate currents gated by γ-aminobutyric acid type A (GABAA) receptors. However, several experimental observations suggest a closer relationship. First, the effect of ketamine on the electroencephalogram (EEG) is markedly changed in the presence of propofol: on its own ketamine increases θ (4–8 Hz) and decreases α (8–13 Hz) oscillations, whereas ketamine induces a significant shift to beta band frequencies (13–30 Hz) in the presence of propofol. Second, both ketamine and propofol cause inhibition of the inward pacemaker current Ih, by binding to the corresponding hyperpolarization-activated cyclic nucleotide-gated potassium channel 1 (HCN1) subunit. The resulting effect is a hyperpolarization of the neuron’s resting membrane potential. Third, the ability of both ketamine and propofol to induce hypnosis is reduced in HCN1-knockout mice. Here we show that one can theoretically understand the observed spectral changes of the EEG based on HCN1-mediated hyperpolarizations alone, without involving the supposed main mechanisms of action of these drugs through NMDA and GABAA, respectively. On the basis of our successful EEG model we conclude that ketamine and propofol should be antagonistic to each other in their interaction at HCN1 subunits. Such a prediction is in accord with the results of clinical experiment in which it is found that ketamine and propofol interact in an infra-additive manner with respect to the endpoints of hypnosis and immobility.

A rare structure at the syntax-discourse interface: heritage and Spanish-dominant native speakers weigh in

The present study examines knowledge of the discourse-appropriateness of Clitic Right Dislocation (CLRD) in a population of Heritage (HS) and Spanish-dominant Native Speakers in order to test the predictions of the Interface Hypothesis (IH; Sorace 2011). The IH predicts that speakers in language contact situations will experience difficulties with integrating information involving the interface of syntax and discourse modules. CLRD relates a dislocated constituent to a discourse antecedent, requiring integration of syntax and pragmatics. Results from an acceptability judgment task did not support the predictions of the IH. No statistical differences between the HSs’ performance and that of L1-dominant native speakers were evidenced when participants were presented with an offline task. Thus, our study did not find any evidence of “incomplete acquisition” (Montrul 2008) as it pertains to this specific linguistic structure.