Factors which Modify the Short and Long Latency Components of the Stretch Reflex in the Human Forearm

AbstractPrevious work has demonstrated that when learning a new motor task, the nervous system modifies feedforward (ie. voluntary) motor commands and that such learning transfers to fast feedback (ie. reflex) responses evoked by mechanical perturbations. Here we show the inverse, that learning new feedback responses transfers to feedforward motor commands. Sixty human participants (34 females) used a robotic exoskeleton and either 1) received short duration mechanical perturbations (20 ms) that created pure elbow rotation or 2) generated self-initiated pure elbow rotations. They did so with the shoulder joint free to rotate (normal arm dynamics) or locked (altered arm dynamics) by the robotic manipulandum. With the shoulder unlocked, the perturbation evoked clear shoulder muscle activity in the long-latency stretch reflex epoch (50-100ms post-perturbation), as required for countering the imposed joint torques, but little muscle activity thereafter in the so-called voluntary response. After locking the shoulder joint, which alters the required joint torques to counter pure elbow rotation, we found a reliable reduction in the long-latency stretch reflex over many trials. This reduction transferred to feedforward control as we observed 1) a reduction in shoulder muscle activity during self-initiated pure elbow rotation trials and 2) kinematic errors (ie. aftereffects) in the direction predicted when failing to compensate for normal arm dynamics, even though participants never practiced self-initiated movements with the shoulder locked. Taken together, our work shows that transfer between feedforward and feedback control is bidirectional, furthering the notion that these processes share common neural circuits that underlie motor learning and transfer.

Download Full-text

Firing patterns of human flexor carpi radialis motor units during the stretch reflex

Journal of Neurophysiology ◽

10.1152/jn.1985.53.5.1179 ◽

1985 ◽

Vol 53 (5) ◽

pp. 1179-1193 ◽

Cited By ~ 44

Author(s):

B. Calancie ◽

P. Bawa

Keyword(s):

Motor Unit ◽

Stretch Reflex ◽

Latency Period ◽

Response Probability ◽

Short Latency ◽

Single Motor Unit ◽

Single Motor ◽

Motoneuron Pool ◽

Long Latency ◽

Long Latency Reflex

Single motor unit and gross surface electromyographic responses to torque motor-produced wrist extensions were studied in human flexor carpi radialis muscle. Surface EMG typically showed two "periods" of reflex activity, at a short and long latency following stretch, but both periods occurring before a subject's voluntary reaction to the stretch. The amplitude of EMG activity in both reflex periods increased monotonically with an increase in the torque load. The amplitude of the short-latency reflex response was very dependent on the motoneuron pool excitability, or preload. The amplitude of the long-latency reflex response also varied with the preload, but could, in addition, be modulated by the subject's preparatory set for a voluntary response to the imposed displacement. When a single motor unit that was not tonically active began to fire during the stretch reflex, it did so primarily during the long-latency period. When caused to fire repetitively by voluntary facilitation of the motoneuron pool, that same unit now showed activity during both periods of the stretch reflex. Further increases in either motoneuron pool facilitation or in perturbation strength resulted in a monotonic increase in response probability of a single motor unit during the short-latency period. However, the response probability of a single unit during the long-latency reflex period did not always vary in a monotonic way with increases in either torque load or motoneuron pool facilitation. For an additional series of experiments, the subject was instructed on how to respond voluntarily to the upcoming wrist perturbation. The three instructions to the subject had no effect on the response probability of a single motor unit during either the background or short-latency periods of the stretch reflex. However, prior instruction clearly affected a unit's response probability during the long-latency reflex period. Changes in the firing rate of motor units, and in the recruitment or derecruitment of nontonic units, contributed to this modulation of reflex activity during the long-latency period.

Download Full-text