Current models of decision making postulate that action selection entails a competition within motor-related areas. According to this view, during action selection, motor activity should integrate cognitive information (e.g., reward) that drives our decisions. We tested this hypothesis in humans by measuring motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) in a left finger muscle during motor preparation in a hand selection task, in which subjects performed left or right key presses according to an imperative signal. This signal was either obvious or ambiguous, but subjects were always asked to react as fast as possible. When the signal was really indistinct, any key press was regarded as correct, so subjects could respond "at random" in those trials. A score based on reaction times was provided after each correct response, and subjects were told they would receive a monetary reward proportional to their final score. Importantly, the scores were either equitable for both hands or favored implicitly left responses (reward neutral and reward biased blocks, respectively). We found that subjects selected their left hand more often in the reward biased than in the reward neutral condition, particularly after ambiguous signals. Moreover, left MEPs were larger, as soon as the signal appeared, in the reward biased than in the reward neutral conditions. During the course of motor preparation, this effect became strongest following ambiguous signals, a condition in which subjects' choices relied strongly on the reward. These results indicate that motor activity is shaped by a cognitive variable that drives our choices, possibly in the context of a competition taking place within motor-related areas.

Neuroimaging and neuropsychological studies suggest that in right-handed individuals, the left hemisphere plays a dominant role in praxis, relative to the right hemisphere. However hemispheric asymmetries assessed with transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) has not shown consistent differences in corticospinal (CS) excitability of the two hemispheres during movements. In the current study, we systematically explored hemispheric asymmetries in inhibitory processes that are manifest during movement preparation and initiation. Single-pulse TMS was applied over the left or right primary motor cortex (M1LEFT and M1RIGHT, respectively) to elicit motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) in the contralateral hand while participants performed a two-choice reaction time task requiring a cued movement of the left or right index finger. In Experiments 1 and 2, TMS probes were obtained during a delay period following the presentation of the preparatory cue that provided partial or full information about the required response. MEPs were suppressed relative to baseline regardless of whether they were elicited in a cued or uncued hand. Importantly, the magnitude of these inhibitory changes in CS excitability was similar when TMS was applied over M1LEFT or M1RIGHT, irrespective of the amount of information carried by the preparatory cue. In Experiment 3, there was no preparatory cue and TMS was applied at various time points after the imperative signal. When CS excitability was probed in the cued effector, MEPs were initially inhibited and then rose across the reaction time interval. This function was similar for M1LEFT and M1RIGHT TMS. When CS excitability was probed in the uncued effector, MEPs remained inhibited throughout the RT interval. However, MEPs in right FDI became more inhibited during selection and initiation of a left hand movement, whereas MEPs in left FDI remained relatively invariant across RT interval for the right hand. In addition to these task-specific effects, there was a global difference in CS excitability across experiments between the two hemispheres. When the intensity of stimulation was set to 115% of the resting threshold, MEPs were larger when the TMS probe was applied over the M1LEFT than over M1RIGHT. In summary, while the latter result suggests that M1LEFT is more excitable than M1RIGHT, the recruitment of preparatory inhibitory mechanisms is similar within the two cerebral hemispheres.

No abstract

Using instructed-delay choice reaction time (RT) paradigms, many previous studies have shown that the motor system is transiently inhibited during response preparation: motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) elicited by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) over the primary motor cortex are typically suppressed during the delay period. This effect has been observed in both selected and non-selected effectors, although MEP changes in selected effectors have been more inconsistent across task versions. Here, we compared changes in MEP amplitudes in three different variants of an instructed-delay choice RT task. All variants required participants to choose between left and right index finger movements but the responses were either provided “in the air” (Variant 1), on a regular keyboard (Variant 2), or on a response device designed to control from premature responses (Variant 3). The task variants also differed according to the visual layout (more concrete in Variant 3) and depending on whether participants received a feedback of their performance (absent in Variant 1). Behavior was globally comparable between the three variants of the task although the propensity to respond prematurely was highest in Variant 2 and lowest in Variant 3. MEPs elicited in a non-selected hand were similarly suppressed in the three variants of the task. However, significant differences emerged when considering MEPs elicited in the selected hand: these MEPs were suppressed in Variants 1 and 3 whereas they were often facilitated in Variant 2, especially in the right dominant hand. In conclusion, MEPs elicited in selected muscles seem to be more sensitive to small variations to the task design than those recorded in non-selected effectors, probably because they reflect a complex combination of inhibitory and facilitatory influences on the motor output system. Finally, the use of a standard keyboard seems to be particularly inappropriate because it encourages participants to respond promptly with no means to control for premature responses, probably increasing the relative amount of facilitatory influences at the time motor inhibition is probed.