Background:The cerebellum and primary motor cortex (M1) are crucial to coordinated and accurate movements of the upper limbs. There is also appreciable evidence that these two structures exert somewhat divergent influences upon proximal versus distal upper limb control. Here, we aimed to differentially regulate the contribution of the cerebellum and M1 to proximal and distal effectors during motor adaptation, with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). For this, we employed tasks that promote similar motor demands, but isolate whole arm from hand/finger movements, in order to functionally segregate the hierarchy of upper limb control. Methods: Both young and older adults took part in a visuomotor rotation task; where they adapted to a 60 visuomotor rotation using either a hand-held joystick (requiring finger/hand movements) or a 2D robotic manipulandum (requiring whole-arm reaching movements), while M1, cerebellar or sham tDCS was applied. Results: We found that cerebellar stimulation improved adaptation performance when arm movements were required to complete the task, while in contrast stimulation of M1 enhanced adaptation during hand and finger movements only. This double-dissociation was replicated in an independent group of older adults, demonstrating that the behaviour remains intact in ageing. Conclusions: These results suggest that stimulation of distinct motor areas can selectively improve motor adaptation in the proximal and distal upper limb. This also highlights new ways in which tDCS might be best applied to achieve reliable rehabilitation of upper limb motor deficits.
Adaptation of movements involving the proximal and distal upper-limb can be differentially facilitated by anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (TDCS) over the cerebellum and primary motor cortex (M1). Here, we build on this evidence by demonstrating that cathodal TDCS impairs motor adaptation with a differentiation of the proximal and distal upper-limbs, relative to the site of stimulation. Healthy young adults received M1 or cerebellar cathodal TDCS while making fast ‘shooting’ movements towards targets under 60° rotated visual feedback conditions, using either whole-arm reaching or fine hand and finger movements. As predicted, we found that cathodal cerebellar TDCS resulted in impairment of adaptation of movements with the whole arm compared to M1 and sham groups, which proved significantly different during late adaptation. However, cathodal cerebellar TDCS also significantly enhanced adaptation of hand movements, which may reflect changes in the excitability of the pathway between the cerebellum and M1. We found no evidence for change of adaptation rates using arm or finger movements following cathodal TDCS directly over M1. These results are further evidence to support movement specific effects of TDCS, and highlight how the connectivity and functional organisation of the cerebellum and M1 must be considered when designing TDCS-based therapies.
A consistent finding in sensorimotor adaptation is a persistent undershoot of full compensation, such that performance asymptotes with residual errors greater than seen at baseline. This behaviour has been attributed to limiting factors within the implicit adaptation system, which reaches a sub-optimal equilibrium between trial-by-trial learning and forgetting. However, recent research has suggested that allowing longer motor planning periods prior to movement eliminates these residual errors. The additional planning time allows required cognitive processes to be completed before movement onset, thus increasing accuracy. Here we looked to extend these findings by investigating the relationship between increased motor preparation time and the size of imposed visuomotor rotation (30°, 45° or 60°) during a hand movement task, with regards to the final asymptotic level of adaptation. We found that restricting preparation time to 0.35 seconds impaired adaptation for moderate and larger rotations, resulting in larger residual errors compared to groups with additional preparation time. However, we found that even extended preparation time failed to eliminate persistent errors, regardless of magnitude of cursor rotation. Thus, the asymptote of adaptation was significantly less than the degree of imposed rotation, for all experimental groups. Additionally, there was a positive relationship between asymptotic error and implicit retention. These data suggest that a prolonged motor preparation period is insufficient to reliably achieve complete adaptation and therefore our results suggest that factors beyond that of planning time contributes to asymptotic adaptation levels.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.