scholarly journals Effects of motor preparation and spatial attention on corticospinal excitability in a delayed-response paradigm

2007 ◽  
Vol 182 (1) ◽  
pp. 125-129 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rogier B. Mars ◽  
Sven Bestmann ◽  
John C. Rothwell ◽  
Patrick Haggard
Neuroreport ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (12) ◽  
pp. 856-862
Author(s):  
Makoto Suzuki ◽  
Takako Suzuki ◽  
Satoshi Tanaka ◽  
Kazuhiro Sugawara ◽  
Toyohiro Hamaguchi

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 2478-2488 ◽  
Author(s):  
D M D Tran ◽  
J A Harris ◽  
I M Harris ◽  
E J Livesey

Abstract Preparing actions to achieve goals, overriding habitual responses, and substituting actions that are no longer relevant are aspects of motor control often assumed to be driven by deliberate top-down processes. In the present study, we investigated whether motor control could come under involuntary control of environmental cues that have been associated with specific actions in the past. We used transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to probe corticospinal excitability as an index of motor preparation, while participants performed a Go/No-Go task (i.e., an action outcome or no action outcome task) and rated what trial was expected to appear next (Go or No-Go). We found that corticospinal excitability during a warning cue for the upcoming trial closely matched recent experience (i.e., cue–outcome pairings), despite conflicting with what participants expected would appear. The results reveal that in an action–outcome task, neurophysiological indices of motor preparation show changes that are consistent with participants learning to associate a preparatory warning cue with a specific action, and are not consistent with the action that participants explicitly anticipate making. This dissociation with conscious expectancy ratings reveals that conditioned responding and motor preparation can operate independently of conscious expectancies about having to act.


2007 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 121-131 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gijs van Elswijk ◽  
Bert U. Kleine ◽  
Sebastiaan Overeem ◽  
Dick F. Stegeman

Behavioral studies using motor preparation paradigms have revealed that increased expectancy of a response signal shortens reaction times (RTs). Neurophysiological data suggest that in such paradigms, not only RT but also neuronal activity in the motor structures involved is modulated by expectancy of behaviorally relevant events. Here, we directly tested whether expectancy of a response signal modulates excitability of the corticospinal system used in the subsequent movement. We combined single- and paired-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) over the primary motor cortex with a simple RT task with variable preparatory delays. We found that, in line with typical behavioral observations, the subjects' RTs decreased with increasing response signal expectancy. TMS results revealed a modulation of corticospinal excitability in correspondence with response signal expectancy. Besides an increased excitability over the time-course of the preparatory delay, corticospinal excitability transiently increased whenever a response signal was expected. Paired-pulse TMS showed that this modulation is unlikely to be mediated by excitability changes in interneuronal inhibitory or facilitatory networks in the primary motor cortex. Changes in corticospinal synchronization or other mechanisms involving spinal circuits are candidates mediating the modulation of corticospinal excitability by expectancy.


2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (6) ◽  
pp. 757-774
Author(s):  
Jacek Bielas ◽  
Łukasz Michalczyk

The Premotor Theory of Attention (PToA) is a prominent, albeit controversial, modern experimental account of attentional processes. According to the PToA, motor preparation is both necessary and sufficient for spatial attention. Explaining the cognitive process of attention in terms of sensori-motor machinery can be considered as embedded in the idea of embodied cognition. The vocabulary adopted by the PToA seems to bear a particular resemblance to Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenological notion of pre-reflective intentionality. He articulates it by means of directness towards the lived world, which is constituted in the spatial motility of the body-subject. In this epistemological state of affairs, we come up with two leading questions: (a) can the main tenets of PToA be essentially reconstructed in terms of the notion of pre-reflective intentionality and since the bodily motility is meant by the French phenomenologist to be at the root of all forms of intentionality, (b) can the PToA be expanded to account for all kinds of attention? In conclusion, we advocate a positive answer for the former question and point to serious doubts as to why it can rather not be retained regarding the latter.


2002 ◽  
Vol 88 (4) ◽  
pp. 2047-2057 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stéphane R. Simon ◽  
Martine Meunier ◽  
Loÿs Piettre ◽  
Anna M. Berardi ◽  
Christoph M. Segebarth ◽  
...  

Recent studies in both monkeys and humans indicate that the dorsal premotor cortex participates in spatial attention and working memory, in addition to its well known role in movement planning and execution. One important question is whether these functions overlap or are segregated within this frontal area. Single-cell recordings in monkeys suggest a relative specialization of the rostral portion of dorsal premotor cortex for attention and/or memory and of the caudal region for motor preparation. To test whether this possibility also holds true in humans, we used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to compare, in the same set of subjects, brain activation related to strong spatial attention and memory demands to that elicited by long motor preparatory periods. The behavioral protocol was based on a task that had proved effective for dissociating neuronal properties related to these two functions in the monkey brain. The principle of the monkey task was that a first cue guided the focus of spatial attention and memory, whereas a second one instructed an arm movement. Based on this principle, two tasks were developed. One maximized spatial attention and memory demands by presenting long series of stimuli (4, 8, or 12) before the motor instructional cue, whereas the other extended the motor preparation phase by imposing long and variable delays (1–5.5 s) between the onset of the instructional cue and movement execution. The two tasks and their respective control conditions were arranged in two blocked-design sequences. The results indicate that the brain networks underlying the two functional domains overlap in the caudate nucleus and presupplementary motor area, and possibly in lateral prefrontal cortex as well, but involve different dorsal premotor fields. Motor preparation primarily recruited a dorsal premotor area located caudally, within the precentral gyrus (together with the supplementary motor area), whereas spatial attention and memory preferentially activated a more rostral site, in and anterior to the precentral sulcus (in addition to the posterior parietal cortex). These findings strengthen the idea that the primate dorsal premotor cortex contributes to both motor and nonmotor processes. Moreover, they corroborate emerging evidence from monkey physiology suggesting a relative functional segregation within this cortex, with attention to short-term storage of visuospatial information engaging a more rostral region than motor preparation.


2016 ◽  
Vol 116 (3) ◽  
pp. 1295-1303 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leonie Oostwoud Wijdenes ◽  
Richard B. Ivry ◽  
Paul M. Bays

Do movement plans, like representations in working memory, share a limited pool of resources? If so, the precision with which each individual movement plan is specified should decrease as the total number of movement plans increases. To explore this, human participants made speeded reaching movements toward visual targets. We examined if preparing one movement resulted in less variability than preparing two movements. The number of planned movements was manipulated in a delayed response cueing procedure that limited planning to a single target ( experiment 1) or hand ( experiment 2) or required planning of movements toward two targets (or with two hands). For both experiments, initial movement direction variability was higher in the two-plan condition than in the one-plan condition, demonstrating a cost associated with planning multiple movements, consistent with the limited resource hypothesis. In experiment 3, we showed that the advantage in initial variability of preparing a single movement was present only when the trajectory could be fully specified. This indicates that the difference in variability between one and two plans reflects the specification of full motor plans, not a general preparedness to move. The precision cost related to concurrent plans represents a novel constraint on motor preparation, indicating that multiple movements cannot be planned independently, even if they involve different limbs.


2008 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gijs van Elswijk ◽  
Willemijn D Schot ◽  
Dick F Stegeman ◽  
Sebastiaan Overeem

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document