Area-specific Modulation of Functional Cortical Activity During Block-based and Trial-based Proactive Inhibition

Yoshida, Junichi; Saiki, Akiko; Soma, Shogo; Yamanaka, Koji; Nonomura, Satoshi; Ríos, Alain; Kawabata, Masanori; Kimura, Minoru; Sakai, Yutaka; Isomura, Yoshikazu

doi:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2018.07.039

Cited by 11 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 65 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Which internal strategies are employed for proactive inhibition is likely influenced by the specific experimental conditions (Mayse et al 2014;Yoshida et al 2018). For example, we used a brief limited hold period (800ms) to encourage subjects to respond rapidly to the Go cue rather than waiting to see if the Stop cue is presented.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Yet direct support for this hypothesis is sparse (Majid et al 2013). There have been few electrophysiological studies of proactive inhibition at the level of individual neurons (Chen et al 2010;Pouget et al 2011;Hardung et al, 2017;Yoshida et al 2018), and to our knowledge none in GPe. We therefore targeted GPe (often called simply GP in rodents) for investigating neural mechanisms of proactive control.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Globus pallidus dynamics reveal covert strategies for behavioral inhibition

Schmidt

Berke

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Flexible behavior requires restraint or cancellation of actions that are no longer appropriate. This behavioral inhibition critically relies on frontal cortex -basal ganglia circuits. A central node within the basal ganglia, the globus pallidus pars externa (GPe), has been hypothesized to mediate "proactive" inhibition: being prepared to stop an action if needed. Here we investigate the population dynamics of rat GPe neurons during preparation-to-stop, stopping, and going.Rats could selectively engage proactive inhibition towards one specific action, as shown by slowed reaction times (RTs) for that action. While proactive inhibition was engaged, GPe population activity occupied state-space locations farther from the trajectory followed during normal movement initiation. Furthermore, the specific state-space location was predictive of distinct types of errors: failures to stop, failures to go, and incorrect choices. The slowed RTs on correct proactive trials reflected a starting bias towards the alternative action, which was overcome before making progress towards action initiation. Our results demonstrate that rats can exert cognitive control via strategic positioning of their GPe network state.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Globus pallidus dynamics reveal covert strategies for behavioral inhibition

Schmidt

Berke

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our findings suggest rodent PPC contributes to ipsilaterally biased motor response and/or planning. see Evarts, 1966;Tanji et al, 1987;Griffin et al, 2015;for rodents, see Soma et al, 2017). Higher-order motor areas include the premotor cortex (PM) and supplementary motor area (SMA) in primates and the secondary motor cortex (M2) in rodents.…”

Section: Significance Statementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, the parietal reach region, a subarea of the primate PPC, is involved in forelimb reaching (Taira et al, 1990;Desmurget et al, 1999;Connolly et al, 2003) and the anterior intraparietal area, another PPC subarea, is involved in hand grasping (Taira et al, 1990;Gallese et al, 1994;Sakata et al, 1995). As is the case with the frontal higherorder motor areas (Tanji et al, 1987;Cisek et al, 2003;Kurata, 2007Kurata, , 2010Nakayama et al, 2015), primate PPC neurons show contralaterally biased bilateral preference during contralateral and ipsilateral limb movements (Kermadi et al, 2000;Chang et al, 2008;Chang and Snyder, 2012). The bilateral preference of the PPC is also supported by a human brain-imaging study (Stark and Zohary, 2008).…”

Section: Significance Statementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Rodent PPC neurons also display motor-related activation during limb locomotion (Chen et al, 1994;Nitz, 2006;Whitlock et al, 2012;Wilber et al, 2014a). However, the preference for contralateral or ipsilateral limb movements is unresolved because measuring independent movements of individual limbs in a standard freely moving condition is technically difficult .…”

Section: Significance Statementmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Ipsilateral-Dominant Control of Limb Movements in Rodent Posterior Parietal Cortex

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is well known that the posterior parietal cortex (PPC) and frontal motor cortices in primates preferentially control voluntary movements of contralateral limbs. The PPC of rats has been defined based on patterns of thalamic and cortical connectivity. The anatomical characteristics of this area suggest that it may be homologous to the PPC of primates. However, its functional roles in voluntary forelimb movements have not been well understood, particularly in the lateralization of motor limb representation; that is, the limb-specific activity representations for right and left forelimb movements. We examined functional spike activity of the PPC and two motor cortices, the primary motor cortex (M1) and the secondary motor cortex (M2), when head-fixed male rats performed right or left unilateral movements. Unlike primates, PPC neurons in rodents were found to preferentially represent ipsilateral forelimb movements, in contrast to the contralateral preference of M1 and M2 neurons. Consistent with these observations, optogenetic activation of PPC and motor cortices, respectively, evoked ipsilaterally and contralaterally biased forelimb movements. Finally, we examined the effects of optogenetic manipulation on task performance. PPC or M1 inhibition by optogenetic GABA release shifted the behavioral limb preference contralaterally or ipsilaterally, respectively. In addition, weak optogenetic PPC activation, which was insufficient to evoke motor responses by itself, shifted the preference ipsilaterally; although similar M1 activation showed no effects on task performance. These paradoxical observations suggest that the PPC plays evolutionarily different roles in forelimb control between primates and rodents.

show abstract