Several lines of research demonstrate that primary motor cortex (M1) is principally involved in controlling the contralateral side of the body. However, M1 activity has been correlated with both contralateral and ipsilateral limb movements. Why does ipsilaterally-related activity not cause contralateral motor output? To address this question, we trained monkeys to counter mechanical loads applied to their right and left limbs. We found >50% of M1 neurons had load-related activity for both limbs. Contralateral loads evoked changes in activity ~10ms sooner than ipsilateral loads. We also found corresponding population activities were distinct, with contralateral activity residing in a subspace that was orthogonal to the ipsilateral activity. Thus, neural responses for the contralateral limb can be extracted without interference from the activity for the ipsilateral limb, and vice versa. Our results show that M1 activity unrelated to downstream motor targets can be segregated from activity related to the downstream motor output.

Recent studies have identified rotational dynamics in motor cortex (MC), which many assume arise from intrinsic connections in MC. However, behavioral and neurophysiological studies suggest that MC behaves like a feedback controller where continuous sensory feedback and interactions with other brain areas contribute substantially to MC processing. We investigated these apparently conflicting theories by building recurrent neural networks that controlled a model arm and received sensory feedback from the limb. Networks were trained to counteract perturbations to the limb and to reach toward spatial targets. Network activities and sensory feedback signals to the network exhibited rotational structure even when the recurrent connections were removed. Furthermore, neural recordings in monkeys performing similar tasks also exhibited rotational structure not only in MC but also in somatosensory cortex. Our results argue that rotational structure may also reflect dynamics throughout the voluntary motor system involved in online control of motor actions.

Muscle responses to mechanical disturbances exhibit two distinct phases: a response starting at ϳ20 ms that is fairly stereotyped, and a response starting at ϳ60 ms modulated by many behavioral contexts including goal-redundancy and environmental obstacles. Muscle responses to disturbances of visual feedback of the hand arise within ϳ90 ms. However, little is known whether these muscle responses are sensitive to behavioral contexts. We had 49 human participants (27 male) execute goal-directed reaches with visual feedback of their hand presented as a cursor. On random trials, the cursor jumped laterally to the reach direction, and thus, required a correction to attain the goal. The first experiment demonstrated that the response amplitude starting at 90 ms scaled with jump magnitude, but only for jumps Ͻ2 cm. For larger jumps, the duration of the muscle response scaled with the jump size starting after 120 ms. The second experiment demonstrated that the early response was sensitive to goal redundancy as wider targets evoked a smaller corrective response. The third experiment demonstrated that the early response did not consider the presence of obstacles, as this response routinely drove participants directly to the goal even though this path was blocked by an obstacle. Instead, the appropriate muscle response to navigate around the obstacle started after 120 ms. Our findings highlight that visual feedback of the limb involves two distinct phases: a response starting at 90 ms with limited sensitivity to jump magnitude and sensitive to goal-redundancy, and a response starting at 120 ms with increased sensitivity to jump magnitude and environmental factors.

Primary motor cortex (M1) almost exclusively controls the contralateral side of the body. However, M1 activity is also modulated during ipsilateral body movements. Previous work has shown that M1 activity related to the ipsilateral arm is independent of the M1 activity related to the contralateral arm. How do these patterns of activity interact when both arms move simultaneously? We explored this problem by training 2 monkeys (male, Macaca mulatta) in a postural perturbation task while recording from M1. Loads were applied to one arm at a time (unimanual) or both arms simultaneously (bimanual). We found 83% of neurons (n = 236) were responsive to both the unimanual and bimanual loads. We also observed a small reduction in activity magnitude during the bimanual loads for both limbs (25%). Across the unimanual and bimanual loads, neurons largely maintained their preferred load directions. However, there was a larger change in the preferred loads for the ipsilateral limb (;25%) than the contralateral limb (;9%). Lastly, we identified the contralateral and ipsilateral subspaces during the unimanual loads and found they captured a significant amount of the variance during the bimanual loads. However, the subspace captured more of the bimanual variance related to the contralateral limb (97%) than the ipsilateral limb (66%). Our results highlight that, even during bimanual motor actions, M1 largely retains its representations of the contralateral and ipsilateral limbs.

Visual and proprioceptive feedback both contribute to perceptual decisions, but it remains unknown how these feedback signals are integrated together or consider factors such as delays and variance during online control. We investigated this question by having participants reach to a target with randomly applied mechanical and/or visual disturbances. We observed that the presence of visual feedback during a mechanical disturbance did not increase the size of the muscle response significantly but did decrease variance, consistent with a dynamic Bayesian integration model. In a control experiment we verified that vision had a potent influence when mechanical and visual disturbances were both present but opposite in sign. These results highlight a complex process for multi-sensory integration, where visual feedback has a relatively modest influence when the limb is mechanically disturbed, but a substantial influence when visual feedback becomes misaligned with the limb.