scholarly journals The Role of Primary Motor Cortex (M1) Glutamate and GABA Signaling in L-DOPA-Induced Dyskinesia in Parkinsonian Rats

2016 ◽  
Vol 36 (38) ◽  
pp. 9873-9887 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. Lindenbach ◽  
M. M. Conti ◽  
C. Y. Ostock ◽  
J. A. George ◽  
A. A. Goldenberg ◽  
...  
2020 ◽  
Vol 598 (4) ◽  
pp. 839-851 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giovanna Pilurzi ◽  
Francesca Ginatempo ◽  
Beniamina Mercante ◽  
Luigi Cattaneo ◽  
Giovanni Pavesi ◽  
...  

2005 ◽  
Vol 93 (2) ◽  
pp. 1099-1103 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alain Kaelin-Lang ◽  
Lumy Sawaki ◽  
Leonardo G. Cohen

Motor training consisting of repetitive thumb movements results in encoding of motor memories in the primary motor cortex. It is not known if proprioceptive input originating in the training movements is sufficient to produce this effect. In this study, we compared the ability of training consisting of voluntary (active) and passively-elicited (passive) movements to induce this form of plasticity. Active training led to successful encoding accompanied by characteristic changes in corticomotor excitability, while passive training did not. These results support a pivotal role for voluntary motor drive in coding motor memories in the primary motor cortex.


2018 ◽  
Vol 38 (6) ◽  
pp. 1430-1442 ◽  
Author(s):  
Atsushi Yokoi ◽  
Spencer A. Arbuckle ◽  
Jörn Diedrichsen

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (5) ◽  
pp. 3087-3101 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pranav J Parikh ◽  
Justin M Fine ◽  
Marco Santello

Abstract Dexterous object manipulation is a hallmark of human evolution and a critical skill for everyday activities. A previous work has used a grasping context that predominantly elicits memory-based control of digit forces by constraining where the object should be grasped. For this “constrained” grasping context, the primary motor cortex (M1) is involved in storage and retrieval of digit forces used in previous manipulations. In contrast, when choice of digit contact points is allowed (“unconstrained” grasping), behavioral studies revealed that forces are adjusted, on a trial-to-trial basis, as a function of digit position. This suggests a role of online feedback of digit position for force control. However, despite the ubiquitous nature of unconstrained hand–object interactions in activities of daily living, the underlying neural mechanisms are unknown. Using noninvasive brain stimulation, we found the role of primary motor cortex (M1) and somatosensory cortex (S1) to be sensitive to grasping context. In constrained grasping, M1 but not S1 is involved in storing and retrieving learned digit forces and position. In contrast, in unconstrained grasping, M1 and S1 are involved in modulating digit forces to position. Our findings suggest that the relative contribution of memory and online feedback modulates sensorimotor cortical interactions for dexterous manipulation.


2007 ◽  
Vol 97 (3) ◽  
pp. 2511-2515 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle L. Harris-Love ◽  
Monica A. Perez ◽  
Robert Chen ◽  
Leonardo G. Cohen

Interhemispheric inhibitory interactions (IHI) operate between homologous distal hand representations in primary motor cortex (M1). It is not known whether proximal arm representations exhibit comparable effects on their homologous counterparts. We studied IHI in different arm representations, targeting triceps brachii (TB, n = 13), first dorsal interosseous (FDI, n = 13), and biceps brachii (BB, n = 7) muscles in healthy volunteers. Transcranial magnetic stimulation test stimuli (TS) were delivered to M1 contralateral to the target muscle preceded 10 ms by a conditioning stimulus (CS) to the opposite M1 at 110–150% resting motor threshold (RMT). IHI was calculated as the ratio between motor-evoked potential (MEP) amplitudes in conditioned relative to unconditioned trials. Mean RMTs were 38.9, 46.9, and 46.0% of stimulator output in FDI, TB, and BB muscles, respectively. IHI was 0.45 ± 0.41 (FDI), 0.78 ± 0.38 (TB), and 0.52 ± 0.32 (BB, P < 0.01) when test MEP amplitudes were matched and 0.28 ± 0.17 (FDI) and 0.85 ± 0.31 (TB, P < 0.05) when TS intensities expressed as percentage RMT were matched. Significant IHI ( P < 0.05) was identified with minimal CS intensities (expressed as percentage stimulator output) in the 30 s for FDI, 60 s for TB, and 40 s for BB. Additionally, a CS of roughly 120% RMT suppressed the test MEP but not a test H-reflex in BB, suggesting IHI observed in BB is likely mediated by a supraspinal mechanism. We conclude that IHI differs between different arm muscle representations, comparable between BB and FDI but lesser for TB. This finding suggests the amount of IHI between different arm representations does not strictly follow a proximal-to-distal gradient, but may be related to the role of each muscle in functional movement synergies.


2020 ◽  
Vol 131 (4) ◽  
pp. e207
Author(s):  
M. Topka ◽  
M. Scholten ◽  
C. Zrenner ◽  
P. Belardinelli ◽  
U. Ziemann ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 83 (3) ◽  
pp. 332-336 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Castillo Saavedra ◽  
Mariana Mendonca ◽  
Felipe Fregni

2013 ◽  
Vol 552 ◽  
pp. 21-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raffaele Nardone ◽  
Yvonne Höller ◽  
Peter Höller ◽  
Natasha Thon ◽  
Aljoscha Thomschewski ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document