Biting intentions modulate digastric reflex responses to sudden unloading of the jaw

Johansson, Anders; Pruszynski, J. Andrew; Edin, Benoni B.; Westberg, Karl-Gunnar

doi:10.1152/jn.00133.2014

Cited by 8 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This experiment investigated how participants prepare for and respond to unpredictable self‐triggered unloading perturbations depending on what they are instructed to do after the perturbation. In agreement with previous work studying similar perturbations in the jaw (Johansson, Pruszynski, et al., ; Johansson, et al., ), we observed instruction‐dependent differences both before and after the unloading perturbation.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 93%

“…Key to our design is its naturalism—motivated by our previous work in the jaw (Johansson, Pruszynski, Edin, & Westberg, ; Johansson, Westburg, & Edin, )—where the participants are in active control of the force increase needed to trigger the sudden and unpredictable decrease in resistive force. This is in contrast to previous studies along these lines where unloading was triggered by an external source (Angel, Eppler, & Iannone, ; Asatryan & Feldman, ; Dufossé, Hugon, & Massion, ; Grago, Houk, & Hasan, ; Latash & Gottlieb, ; Lowrey, Bourke, Bagg, Dukelow, & Scott, ; Paulignan, Dufossé, Hugon, & Massion, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Maintaining arm control during self‐triggered and unpredictable unloading perturbations

Reschechtko

Johansson

Pruszynski

2019

Eur J of Neuroscience

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We often perform actions where we must break through some resistive force, but want to remain in control during this unpredictable transition; for example, when an object we are pushing on transitions from static to dynamic friction and begins to move. We designed a laboratory task to replicate this situation in which participants actively pushed against a robotic manipulandum until they exceeded an unpredictable threshold, at which point the manipulandum moved freely. Human participants were instructed to either stop the movement of the handle following this unloading perturbation, or to continue pushing. We found that participants were able to modulate their reflexes in response to this unpredictable and self‐triggered unloading perturbation according to the instruction they were following, and that this reflex modulation could not be explained by pre‐perturbation muscle state. However, in a second task, where participants reactively produced force during the pre‐unloading phase in response to the robotic manipulandum to maintain a set hand position, they were unable to modulate their reflexes in the same task‐dependent way. This occurred even though the forces they produced were matched to the first task and they had more time to prepare for the unloading event. We suggest this disparity occurs because of different neural circuits involved in posture and movement, meaning that participants in the first task did not require additional time to switch from postural to movement control.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Maintaining arm control during self‐triggered and unpredictable unloading perturbations

Reschechtko

Johansson

Pruszynski

2019

Eur J of Neuroscience

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…He found that, although the verbal instruction did not modulate the short-latency stretch response (i.e., 25-50 ms postperturbation onset), the magnitude of the long-latency stretch response was larger when participants were instructed to resist the perturbation. Since this seminal work, similar patterns of goal-dependent modulation have been shown in many muscles, including those acting at the jaw (Johansson et al 2014), shoulder (Kurtzer et al 2014;Nashed et al 2012;Omrani et al 2013;Pruszynski et al 2008), elbow (Cluff and Scott 2013;Colebatch et al 1979;Crago et al 1976;Evarts and Granit 1976;Nashed et al 2012Nashed et al , 2014Omrani et al 2013;Pruszynski et al 2008Pruszynski et al , 2011bRavichandran et al 2013;Rothwell et al 1980;Shemmell et al 2009), wrist (Calancie andBawa 1985;Jaeger et al 1982; Lee and Tatton 1982;Manning et al 2012), finger (Capaday and Stein 1987;Cole et al 1984;Marsden et al 1981), and ankle (Gottlieb and Agarwal 1979;Ludvig et al 2007). …”

mentioning

confidence: 68%

Goal-dependent modulation of the long-latency stretch response at the shoulder, elbow, and wrist

Weiler

Gribble

Pruszynski

2015

Journal of Neurophysiology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Weiler J, Gribble PL, Pruszynski JA. Goal-dependent modulation of the long-latency stretch response at the shoulder, elbow, and wrist. J Neurophysiol 114: 3242-3254, 2015. First published October 7, 2015 doi:10.1152/jn.00702.2015.-Many studies have demonstrated that muscle activity 50 -100 ms after a mechanical perturbation (i.e., the long-latency stretch response) can be modulated in a manner that reflects voluntary motor control. These previous studies typically assessed modulation of the long-latency stretch response from individual muscles rather than how this response is concurrently modulated across multiple muscles. Here we investigated such concurrent modulation by having participants execute goal-directed reaches to visual targets after mechanical perturbations of the shoulder, elbow, or wrist while measuring activity from six muscles that articulate these joints. We found that shoulder, elbow, and wrist muscles displayed goal-dependent modulation of the long-latency stretch response, that the relative magnitude of participants' goal-dependent activity was similar across muscles, that the temporal onset of goal-dependent muscle activity was not reliably different across the three joints, and that shoulder muscles displayed goal-dependent activity appropriate for counteracting intersegmental dynamics. We also observed that the long-latency stretch response of wrist muscles displayed goal-dependent modulation after elbow perturbations and that the long-latency stretch response of elbow muscles displayed goal-dependent modulation after wrist perturbations. This pattern likely arises because motion at either joint could bring the hand to the visual target and suggests that the nervous system rapidly exploits such simple kinematic redundancy when processing sensory feedback to support goal-directed actions.

show abstract

“…In addition, neural control involved in such unnatural tasks performed at high velocity (i.e. presynaptic inhibition, unloading and stretch reflexes) may prevent muscle shortening velocity from reaching its full potential (Chow and Darling, 1999;Duclay et al, 2014;Johansson et al, 2014). Overall, these observations question the applicability of the slack test in humans.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The slack test does not assess maximal shortening velocity of muscle fascicle in human

Hager

Dorel

Nordez

et al. 2018

Journal of Experimental Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The application of a series of extremely high accelerative motor-driven quick releases while muscles contract isometrically (i.e. slack test) has been proposed to assess unloaded velocity in human muscle. This study aimed to measure gastrocnemius medialis fascicle shortening velocity () and tendinous tissue shortening velocity during motor-driven quick releases performed at various activation levels to assess the applicability of the slack test in humans. Gastrocnemius medialis peak and joint velocity recorded from 25 participants using high frame rate ultrasound during quick releases (at activation levels from 0% to 60% of maximal voluntary isometric torque) and during fast contractions without external load (ballistic condition) were compared. Unloaded joint velocity calculated using the slack test method increased whereas decreased with muscle activation level (≤0.03). Passive and low-level quick releases elicited higher values (≥41.8±10.7 cm s) compared with the ballistic condition (36.3±8.7 cm s), while quick releases applied at 60% of maximal voluntary isometric torque produced the lowest These findings suggest that initial fascicle length, complex fascicle-tendon interactions, unloading reflex and motor-driven movement pattern strongly influence and limit the shortening velocity achieved during the slack test. Furthermore, elicited by quick releases is likely to reflect substantial contributions of passive processes. Therefore, the slack test is not appropriate to assess maximal muscle shortening velocity .

show abstract

Biting intentions modulate digastric reflex responses to sudden unloading of the jaw

Cited by 8 publications

References 57 publications

Maintaining arm control during self‐triggered and unpredictable unloading perturbations

Maintaining arm control during self‐triggered and unpredictable unloading perturbations

Goal-dependent modulation of the long-latency stretch response at the shoulder, elbow, and wrist

The slack test does not assess maximal shortening velocity of muscle fascicle in human

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About