The central nervous system (CNS) develops motor strategies that minimize various hidden criteria, such as end-point variance or effort. A large body of literature suggests that the dominant arm is specialized for such open-loop optimization-like processes, whilst the non-dominant arm is specialized for closed-loop postural control. Building on recent results suggesting that the brain plans arm movements that take advantage of gravity effects to minimize muscle effort, the present study tests the hypothesized superiority of the dominant arm motor system for effort minimization. Thirty participants (22.5 ± 2.1 years old; all right-handed) performed vertical arm movements between two targets (40° amplitude), in two directions (upwards and downwards) with their two arms (dominant and non-dominant). We recorded the arm kinematics and electromyographic activities of the anterior and posterior deltoid to compare two motor signatures of the gravity-related optimization process; i.e., directional asymmetries and negative epochs on phasic muscular activity. We found that these motor signatures were still present during movements performed with the non-dominant arm, indicating that the effort-minimization process also occurs for the non-dominant motor system. However, these markers were reduced compared with movements performed with the dominant arm. This difference was especially prominent during downward movements, where the optimization of gravity effects occurs early in the movement. Assuming that the dominant arm is optimal to minimize muscle effort, as demonstrated by previous studies, the present results support the hypothesized superiority of the dominant arm motor system for effort-minimization.

Several sensorimotor modifications are known to occur with aging, possibly leading to adverse outcomes such as falls. Recently, some of those modifications have been proposed to emerge from motor planning deteriorations. Motor planning of vertical movements is thought to engage an internal model of gravity to anticipate its mechanical effects on the body-limbs and thus to genuinely produce movements that minimize muscle effort. This is supported, amongst other results, by directiondependent kinematics where relative durations to peak accelerations and peak velocity are shorter for upward than for downward movements. The present study compares the motor planning of fast and slow vertical arm reaching movements between 18 young (24 ± 3 years old) and 17 older adults (70 ± 5 years old). We found that older participants still exhibit strong directional asymmetries (i.e., differences between upward and downward movements), indicating that optimization processes during motor planning persist with healthy aging. However, the size of these differences was increased in older participants, indicating that gravity-related motor planning changes with age. We discuss this increase as the possible result of an overestimation of gravity torque or increased weight of the effort cost in the optimization process. Overall, these results support the hypothesis that feedforward processes and, more precisely, optimal motor planning, remain active with healthy aging.

Aging is associated with modifications of several brain structures and functions. These modifications then manifest as modified behaviors. It has been proposed that some brain function modifications may compensate for some other deteriorated ones, thus maintaining behavioral performance. Through the concept of compensation versus deterioration, this article reviews the literature on motor function in healthy and pathological aging. We first highlight mechanistic studies that used paradigms, allowing us to identify precise compensation mechanisms in healthy aging. Subsequently, we review studies investigating motor function in two often-associated neurological conditions, i.e., mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer’s disease. We point out the need to expand the knowledge gained from descriptive studies with studies targeting specific motor control processes. Teasing apart deteriorated versus compensating processes represents precious knowledge that could significantly improve the prevention and rehabilitation of age-related loss of mobility.

Motor lateralization refers to differences in the neural organization of cerebral hemispheres, resulting in different control specializations between the dominant and the non-dominant motor systems. Multiple studies proposed that the dominant hemisphere is specialized for open-loop optimization-like processes. Recently, comparing arm kinematics between upward and downward movements, we found that the dominant arm outperformed the non-dominant one regarding gravity-related motor optimization in healthy young subjects. The literature about aging effects on motor control presents several neurophysiological and behavioral evidences for an age-related reduction of motor lateralization. Here, we compare the lateralization of a well-known gravity-related optimal motor control process between young and older adults. Thirty healthy young (mean age = 24.1 ± 3 years) and nineteen healthy older adults (mean age = 73.0 ± 8) performed single degree-of-freedom vertical arm movements between two targets (upward and downward).Participants alternatively reached with their dominant and non-dominant arms. We recorded arm kinematics and electromyographic activities of the prime movers (Anterior and Posterior Deltoids) and we analyzed parameters thought to represent the hallmark of the gravity-related optimization process (i.e directional asymmetries and negative epochs on the phasic EMG activity). We found no arm difference in older participants, such that parameters with both arms were similar to those of young participants with their dominant arm. With the non-dominant arm, these results suggest that older adults better optimize gravity effects than young adults.

The central nervous system (CNS) is thought to develop motor strategies that minimize various hidden criteria, such as end-point variance or effort. A large body of literature suggests that the dominant arm is specialized for such open-loop optimization-like processes whilst the non-dominant arm is specialized for closed-loop control. Building on recent results suggesting that the brain plans arm movements that takes advantage of gravity effects to minimize muscle effort, the present study tests the hypothesized superiority of the dominant arm motor system for effort minimization. Thirty participants (22.5 ± 2.1 years old; all right-handed) performed vertical arm movements between two targets (40° amplitude), in two directions (upwards and downwards) with their two arms (dominant and non-dominant). We recorded the arm kinematics and the electromyographic activity of the anterior and posterior deltoid to compare two motor signatures of the gravity-related optimization process; i.e., directional asymmetries and negative epochs on phasic muscular activity. We found that these motor signatures were still present during movements performed with the non-dominant arm, indicating that the effort-minimization process also occurs for the non-dominant motor system. However, these markers were reduced compared with movements performed with the dominant arm. This difference was especially prominent during downward movements, where the optimization of gravity effects occurs early in the movement. Assuming that the dominant arm is optimal to minimize muscle effort, as suggested by previous studies, the present results support the hypothesized superiority of the dominant arm motor system for effort-minimization.

Several sensorimotor control studies have provided evidence supporting that the central nervous system optimizes gravity effects to minimize muscle effort. Recently, this hypothesis has been supported by the consistent observation of direction-specific negative epochs in the phasic electromyographic signal of antigravity muscles during vertical arm movements. This suggests that gravity torque is harvested to produce some of the arm motion. However, further investigation is needed to more finely understand how the CNS integrates gravity effects into muscle commands. Here, we aimed to analyze the phasic muscular activity across varying movement speeds during horizontal and vertical arm movements. We quantified the amount of negativity during acceleration and deceleration phases for all movement directions during fast, natural, and slow movements. We found that the negativity was more important during the acceleration phase of downward movements and during the deceleration phase of upward movements, resulting in diminished phasic activity compared to horizontal movements. Concomitantly, we found direction-specific effects of movement speed on phasic EMG activity of gravity muscles. This resulted in altered EMG to kinematics relationships in vertical movements compared to horizontal ones. These results support the Effort-minimization hypothesis and confirm that the negativity of phasic EMG is an important aspect of the motor command. Furthermore, the present results reveal that the CNS finely tunes this feature across a range of movement speeds and directions.

No abstract

How corticospinal excitability changes during eccentric locomotor exercise is unknown. In the present study, 13 volunteers performed 30-min strenuous concentric and eccentric cycling bouts at the same power output (60% concentric peak power output). Transcranial magnetic and electrical femoral nerve stimulations were applied at exercise onset (3rd min) and end (25th min). Motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) amplitude was measured for the rectus femoris (RF) and vastus lateralis (VL) muscles with surface electromyography (EMG) and expressed as a percentage of maximal M-wave amplitude (MMAX). EMG amplitude 100 ms prior to MEPs and the silent period duration were calculated. There was no change in any neural parameter during the exercises (all P > 0.24). VL and RF MMAX were unaffected by exercise modality (all P > 0.38). VL MEP amplitude was greater (26 ± 11.4 vs. 15.2 ± 7.7% MMAX; P = 0.008) during concentric than eccentric cycling whereas RF MEP amplitude was not different (24.4 ± 10.8 vs. 17.2 ± 9.8% MMAX; P = 0.051). While VL EMG was higher during concentric than eccentric cycling (P = 0.03), RF EMG showed no significant difference (P = 0.07). Similar silent period durations were found (RF: 120 ± 30 ms; VL: 114 ± 27 ms; all P > 0.61), but the silent period/MEP ratio was higher during eccentric than concentric cycling for both muscles (all P < 0.02). In conclusion, corticospinal excitability to the knee extensors is lower and relative silent period longer during eccentric than concentric cycling, yet both remained unaltered with time.