Auditory startle reflex inhibited by preceding self‐action

Abstract

A startle reflex to a startle pulse is inhibited when preceded by a prestimulus. We introduced a key-press action (self-action) or an 85 dB noise burst as a prestimulus, followed by a 115 dB noise burst as a startle pulse. We manipulated temporal offsets between the prestimulus and the startle pulse from 30-1,500 ms to examine whether self-action modulates the startle reflex and the temporal properties of the modulatory effect. We assessed eyeblink reflexes by electromyography. Both prestimuli decreased reflexes compared to pulse-alone trials. Moreover, the temporal windows of inhibition were different between the types of prestimuli. A faster maximal inhibition and narrower temporal window in self-action trials suggest that preceding self-action inhibits the startle reflex and allows prediction of the coming pulse in different ways from auditory prestimuli.

Threat vs control: Potentiation of the trigeminal blink reflex by threat proximity is overruled by self‐stimulation

“…In that line, also reflex responses may differ depending on how they are elicited: self-generated or by an experimenter. Self-administration of stimuli depressed the size of cutaneous flexor reflex responses (Young, 1973), of the transcortical long latency component of the stretch reflex (Rothwell, Day, Berardelli, & Marsden, 1986), of cutaneous reflexes evoked during human walking (Baken, Nieuwenhuijzen, Bastiaanse, Dietz, & Duysens, 2006), and of auditory startle reactions (Kawachi, Matsue, Shibata, Imaizumi, & Gyoba, 2014). Inhibition of the R2 component of the TBR following stimulus self-delivery has also previously been demonstrated (Ison et al, 1990;Meincke et al, 1992).…”

“…Interestingly, the amount of startle inhibition by self-triggering was smaller than that induced by auditory prepulses, possibly because of the excessive intensity of a startle-eliciting stimulus, which might be neither predicted nor perceived as a sensory consequence of self-action (Kawachi et al, 2014). The temporal profile differed for startle reflex inhibition induced by self-action versus prepulses: the former lasted up to 500 ms with a maximum at ISI 30 ms, whereas PPI effects lasted more than 1,500 ms with a maximum at ISIs from 60 to 120 ms (Kawachi et al, 2014). A similar time range has been reported for eye-blink amplitudes following self-elicited glabella taps (Cohen et al, 1983).…”

“…However, self-elicited auditory startle reflexes were inhibited despite randomly varying delays interposed between triggering and presenting tones (Kawachi et al, 2014). Interestingly, the amount of startle inhibition by self-triggering was smaller than that induced by auditory prepulses, possibly because of the excessive intensity of a startle-eliciting stimulus, which might be neither predicted nor perceived as a sensory consequence of self-action (Kawachi et al, 2014). The temporal profile differed for startle reflex inhibition induced by self-action versus prepulses: the former lasted up to 500 ms with a maximum at ISI 30 ms, whereas PPI effects lasted more than 1,500 ms with a maximum at ISIs from 60 to 120 ms (Kawachi et al, 2014).…”

“…Temporal predictability was long considered to be a crucial factor for inhibitory effects induced by self-action (Schafer & Marcus, 1973). However, self-elicited auditory startle reflexes were inhibited despite randomly varying delays interposed between triggering and presenting tones (Kawachi et al, 2014). Interestingly, the amount of startle inhibition by self-triggering was smaller than that induced by auditory prepulses, possibly because of the excessive intensity of a startle-eliciting stimulus, which might be neither predicted nor perceived as a sensory consequence of self-action (Kawachi et al, 2014).…”

Reporting on the temporal properties of visual events masked with continuous flash suppression

“…regarding external events only and not while performing an action, such as a button press or reaching as described by Rosebloom and Arnold (2011)), then they would likely not be as capable of performing the discriminations seen in the current study. This sort of evidence would be particularly interesting in light of the considerable literature on the attenuation of sensory information during action (Kawachi, Matsue, Shibata, Imaizumi, & Gyoba, 2014;Matin, 1974;Voss, Ingram, Wolpert, & Haggard, 2008). For example, the reader will surely be familiar with the odd inability to tickle oneself (Blakemore, Wolpert, & Frith, 1998).…”