scholarly journals M1 disruption delays motor processes but not deliberation about action choices

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gerard Derosiere ◽  
David Thura ◽  
Paul Cisek ◽  
Julie Duque

AbstractDecisions about actions typically involve a period of deliberation that ends with the commitment to a choice and the motor processes overtly expressing that choice. Previous studies have shown that neural activity in sensorimotor areas, including the primary motor cortex (M1), correlates with deliberation features during action selection. Yet, the causal contribution of these areas to the decision process remains unclear. Here, we investigated whether M1 determines choice commitment, or whether it simply reflects decision signals coming from upstream structures and instead mainly contributes to the motor processes that follow commitment. To do so, we tested the impact of a disruption of M1 activity, induced by continuous theta burst stimulation (cTBS), on the behavior of human subjects in (1) a simple reaction time (SRT) task allowing us to estimate the duration of the motor processes and (2) a modified version of the tokens task (Cisek et al., 2009), which allowed us to estimate subjects’ time of commitment as well as accuracy criterion. The efficiency of cTBS was attested by a reduction in motor evoked potential amplitudes following M1 disruption, as compared to those following a sham stimulation. Furthermore, M1 cTBS lengthened SRTs, indicating that motor processes were perturbed by the intervention. Importantly, all of the behavioral results in the tokens task were similar following M1 disruption and sham stimulation, suggesting that the contribution of M1 to the deliberation process is potentially negligible. Taken together, these findings favor the view that M1 contribution is downstream of the decision process.New and noteworthyDecisions between actions are ubiquitous in the animal realm. Deliberation during action choices entails changes in the activity of the sensorimotor areas controlling those actions, but the causal role of these areas is still often debated. Using continuous theta burst stimulation, we show that disrupting the primary motor cortex (M1) delays the motor processes that follow instructed commitment but does not alter volitional deliberation, suggesting that M1 contribution may be downstream of the decision process.

2019 ◽  
Vol 122 (4) ◽  
pp. 1566-1577 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gerard Derosiere ◽  
David Thura ◽  
Paul Cisek ◽  
Julie Duque

Decisions about actions typically involve a period of deliberation that ends with the commitment to a choice and the motor processes overtly expressing that choice. Previous studies have shown that neural activity in sensorimotor areas, including the primary motor cortex (M1), correlates with deliberation features during action selection. However, the causal contribution of these areas to the decision process remains unclear. Here, we investigated whether M1 determines choice commitment or whether it simply reflects decision signals coming from upstream structures and instead mainly contributes to the motor processes that follow commitment. To do so, we tested the impact of a disruption of M1 activity, induced by continuous theta burst stimulation (cTBS), on the behavior of human subjects in 1) a simple reaction time (SRT) task allowing us to estimate the duration of the motor processes and 2) a modified version of the tokens task (Cisek P, Puskas GA, El-Murr S. J Neurosci 29: 11560–11571, 2009), which allowed us to estimate subjects’ time of commitment as well as accuracy criterion. The efficiency of cTBS was attested by a reduction in motor evoked potential amplitudes following M1 disruption compared with those following a sham stimulation. Furthermore, M1 cTBS lengthened SRTs, indicating that motor processes were perturbed by the intervention. Importantly, all of the behavioral results in the tokens task were similar following M1 disruption and sham stimulation, suggesting that the contribution of M1 to the deliberation process is potentially negligible. Taken together, these findings favor the view that M1 contribution is downstream of the decision process. NEW & NOTEWORTHY Decisions between actions are ubiquitous in the animal realm. Deliberation during action choices entails changes in the activity of the sensorimotor areas controlling those actions, but the causal role of these areas is still often debated. With the use of continuous theta burst stimulation, we show that disrupting the primary motor cortex (M1) delays the motor processes that follow instructed commitment but does not alter volitional deliberation, suggesting that M1 contribution may be downstream of the decision process.


2014 ◽  
Vol 261 ◽  
pp. 177-184 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bimal Lakhani ◽  
David A.E. Bolton ◽  
Veronica Miyasike-daSilva ◽  
Albert H. Vette ◽  
William E. McIlroy

2009 ◽  
Vol 120 (4) ◽  
pp. 796-801 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ying-Zu Huang ◽  
John C. Rothwell ◽  
Chin-Song Lu ◽  
JiunJie Wang ◽  
Yi-Hsin Weng ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 115 (2) ◽  
pp. 717-727 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Suppa ◽  
Flavio Di Stasio ◽  
Luca Marsili ◽  
Neeraj Upadhyay ◽  
Daniele Belvisi ◽  
...  

Whether the primary motor cortex (M1) contributes to the pathophysiology of corticobasal syndrome (CBS) remains unclear. In this study in patients with probable CBS, we tested whether M1 plasticity contributes to the pathophysiology of symptoms in the contralateral “less affected” limb, manifesting only parkinsonism, and in the contralateral “more affected” limb, manifesting parkinsonism plus other motor and nonmotor symptoms. In Experiment 1, we applied intermittent/continuous theta-burst stimulation (iTBS/cTBS) over the M1 contralateral to the less affected limb in 17 patients. In Experiment 2, we applied iTBS/cTBS over the M1 contralateral to the more affected limb in 14 of the 17 patients. We measured iTBS/cTBS-induced plasticity as reflected by motor-evoked potential (MEP) changes. Data were compared with those obtained in 17 healthy subjects (HS). In Experiment 1, TBS over the M1 contralateral to the less affected limb disclosed reduced plasticity in patients than in HS. In Experiment 2, in 5 of 14 patients we recorded abnormally low-amplitude MEPs, preventing the evaluation of plasticity in the M1 contralateral to the more affected limb. In the remaining nine patients, TBS disclosed abnormal plasticity characterized by high intersubject variability. In these nine patients, the response to TBS correlated with specific patients' clinical features. In the present study in patients with probable CBS, we have demonstrated heterogeneous abnormalities of M1 that contribute to the pathophysiology of this condition.


2012 ◽  
Vol 123 (5) ◽  
pp. 1010-1015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helge Hellriegel ◽  
Eva M. Schulz ◽  
Hartwig R. Siebner ◽  
Günther Deuschl ◽  
Jan H. Raethjen

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document