Cutaneomotor integration in humans is somatotopically organized at various levels of the nervous system and is task dependent

Abstract

Integration of tactile afferent signals with motor commands is crucial for the performance of purposeful movements such as during manipulation of an object in the hand. To study the somatotopic organization of sensorimotor integration we applied electrical peripheral conditioning stimuli to a digit located near (homotopic stimulation) or distant from (heterotopic stimulation) relaxed or isometrically contracted intrinsic hand muscles at variable time intervals prior to transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). Cutaneous stimulation has previously been shown to modulate the amplitude of the motor evoked potential (MEP) and to shorten the duration of the silent period (SP) evoked by TMS. In relaxed target muscles the time-dependent modulation of TMS-evoked motor responses by homotopic conditioning stimulation differed from modulation by heterotopic stimulation. Similar differences in the modulation pattern evoked by homotopic and heterotopic conditioning stimulation were observed for two distinct target muscles of the hand (abductor digiti minimi, abductor pollicis brevis muscle). Differences in modulation were maximal when the conditioning stimulation was applied 25-30 ms and 150-200 ms prior to TMS. Comparison of the modulation of the amplitudes of MEPs evoked by transcranial electrical stimulation (TES) and the modulation of those evoked by TMS suggests that differences between homotopic and heterotopic stimulation originate subcortically at 25- to 30-ms and, at least partially, cortically at 150- to 200-ms interstimulus intervals. In isometrically contracted intrinsic hand muscles the degree to which the SP was shortened reflected the location and the timing of the conditioning stimulus. Shortening was maximal when the conditioning stimulus was applied nearest to the contracted target muscle and 20 ms prior to the test stimulus. In contrast to the SP duration, the MEP size in voluntarily contracted target muscles was unaffected by the location of the conditioning stimulus. The somatotopic gradient of SP shortening was abolished when the two target muscles were simultaneously activated isometrically. Together, our findings suggest that somatotopy of input-output relationships is implemented at both a spinal and a cortical level in the human central nervous system and may also depend on the motor task involved.

Short-latency afferent inhibition during selective finger movement

“…Short-latency sensory nerve stimulation at rest inhibits corticospinal output more consistently with homotopic stimulation than with heterotopic stimulation, a finding similar to previous studies (Classen et al 2000;Tamburin et al 2001). During movement, the homotopic SAI inhibitory network decreases the corticospinal output to the muscle in the surround but not to the moving muscle.…”

“…These new findings extend the work of others (Classen et al 2000;Tokimura et al 2000;Tamburin et al 2001;Stinear and Byblow 2003;Sohn and Hallett 2004a;Voller et al 2005) by demonstrating that the neural system mediating SAI appears to differently influence modulation of corticospinal output to the surround during movement compared to at rest. It is also another example of the role that somatosensory integration plays during volitional movement.…”

“…The stimuli were applied at 200% of perception threshold (Classen et al 2000). The ring electrodes were connected to a Nicolet Viking EMG machine (Skovlunde, Denmark).…”

“…Electrical stimulation was applied to a digital nerve near (homotopic) or distant from (heterotopic) each target muscle. SAI at rest seems to be stronger with homotopic stimulation (Classen et al 2000;Tamburin et al 2001). What happens to SAI during selective finger movement is unknown.…”

“…In general, inhibition of the motor evoked potential (MEP) appears to be most consistent with interstimulus interval (ISI) at approximately 20 ms, called ''short-latency afferent inhibition'' (SAI) and 200 ms called, ''long-latency afferent inhibition'' (LAI) (Classen et al 2000;Tokimura et al 2000;Tamburin et al 2001;Sailer et al 2002;Chen 2004). Modulation of M1 excitability also depends on the location of the peripheral stimulus (Classen et al 2000;Tamburin et al 2001;Kobayashi et al 2003). In these studies, MEPs elicited by TMS were recorded from two different hand muscles.…”