Effects of motor preparation and spatial attention on corticospinal excitability in a delayed-response paradigm

Mars, Rogier B.; Bestmann, Sven; Rothwell, John C.; Haggard, Patrick

doi:10.1007/s00221-007-1055-4

Cited by 72 publications

(58 citation statements)

References 15 publications

(21 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast, the selected condition was associated with a particularly weak MEP suppression; it was much less pronounced than in the non-selected condition. In the past, a few studies have reported an increase in MEP amplitudes during delay periods [12, 20, 21]. Interestingly, all of them required participants to provide their response by pressing a button.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Motor Inhibition in Variants of the Instructed-Delay Choice Reaction Time Task

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Motor Inhibition in Variants of the Instructed-Delay Choice Reaction Time Task

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Activation decreases in these regions are almost exclusively in the ‘planning versus baseline’ contrast, are in line with our previous findings (den Braber et al ., 2008) and those from van den Heuvel and colleagues (2005). Since these areas are involved in basic functions of motion processing (Rowe et al ., 2001), motor preparation (Hoshi and Tanji, 2000; Mars et al ., 2007) and visuospatial processing (Cabeza and Nyberg, 2000), they may support mainly proper task execution (e.g. analysis of planning stimulus, imaginary movement of the beads, executing a response) rather than higher order planning.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Brain activation during cognitive planning in twins discordant or concordant for obsessive-compulsive symptoms

Braber

Ent

Cath

et al. 2010

Brain

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Neuroimaging studies have indicated abnormalities in cortico-striatal-thalamo-cortical circuits in patients with obsessive–compulsive disorder compared with controls. However, there are inconsistencies between studies regarding the exact set of brain structures involved and the direction of anatomical and functional changes. These inconsistencies may reflect the differential impact of environmental and genetic risk factors for obsessive–compulsive disorder on different parts of the brain. To distinguish between functional brain changes underlying environmentally and genetically mediated obsessive–compulsive disorder, we compared task performance and brain activation during a Tower of London planning paradigm in monozygotic twins discordant (n = 38) or concordant (n = 100) for obsessive–compulsive symptoms. Twins who score high on obsessive–compulsive symptoms can be considered at high risk for obsessive–compulsive disorder. We found that subjects at high risk for obsessive–compulsive disorder did not differ from the low-risk subjects behaviourally, but we obtained evidence that the high-risk subjects differed from the low-risk subjects in the patterns of brain activation accompanying task execution. These regions can be separated into those that were affected by mainly environmental risk (dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and lingual cortex), genetic risk (frontopolar cortex, inferior frontal cortex, globus pallidus and caudate nucleus) and regions affected by both environmental and genetic risk factors (cingulate cortex, premotor cortex and parts of the parietal cortex). Our results suggest that neurobiological changes related to obsessive–compulsive symptoms induced by environmental factors involve primarily the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, whereas neurobiological changes induced by genetic factors involve orbitofrontal–basal ganglia structures. Regions showing similar changes in high-risk twins from discordant and concordant pairs may be part of compensatory networks that keep planning performance intact, in spite of cortico-striatal-thalamo-cortical deficits.

show abstract

“…We hypothesized that this early reduction reflects the proactive inhibition of an undesirable response (Koch et al, 2006;Mars et al, 2007;van den Hurk et al, 2007;van Elswijk et al, 2007), such as an avoidance movement elicited by the approaching ball. We therefore measured the effect of voluntary inhibition of the motor response at the time of distractor presentation (Coxon et al, 2006(Coxon et al, , 2007 to examine whether this would suppress MEP amplitudes to a similar level as found with near distractor balls.…”

Section: Experiments 3: Near Distractor Balls Suppress Corticospinal Ementioning

confidence: 99%

“…We further examined the process of "proactive inhibition," the ability to inhibit in advance one movement to execute another (Koch et al, 2006;Mars et al, 2007;van den Hurk et al, 2007;van Elswijk et al, 2007), in relation to the suppression of possible avoidance responses elicited by the approaching ball.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Coding of Visual Space during Motor Preparation: Approaching Objects Rapidly Modulate Corticospinal Excitability in Hand-Centered Coordinates

Makin¹,

Holmes²,

Brozzoli³

et al. 2009

J. Neurosci.

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Defensive behaviors, such as withdrawing your hand to avoid potentially harmful approaching objects, rely on rapid sensorimotor transformations between visual and motor coordinates. We examined the reference frame for coding visual information about objects approaching the hand during motor preparation. Subjects performed a simple visuomanual task while a task-irrelevant distractor ball rapidly approached a location either near to or far from their hand. After the distractor ball appearance, single pulses of transcranial magnetic stimulation were delivered over the subject's primary motor cortex, eliciting motor evoked potentials (MEPs) in their responding hand. MEP amplitude was reduced when the ball approached near the responding hand, both when the hand was on the left and the right of the midline. Strikingly, this suppression occurred very early, at 70 -80 ms after ball appearance, and was not modified by visual fixation location. Furthermore, it was selective for approaching balls, since static visual distractors did not modulate MEP amplitude. Together with additional behavioral measurements, we provide converging evidence for automatic hand-centered coding of visual space in the human brain.

show abstract

Effects of motor preparation and spatial attention on corticospinal excitability in a delayed-response paradigm

Cited by 72 publications

References 15 publications

Comparison of Motor Inhibition in Variants of the Instructed-Delay Choice Reaction Time Task

Comparison of Motor Inhibition in Variants of the Instructed-Delay Choice Reaction Time Task

Brain activation during cognitive planning in twins discordant or concordant for obsessive-compulsive symptoms

Coding of Visual Space during Motor Preparation: Approaching Objects Rapidly Modulate Corticospinal Excitability in Hand-Centered Coordinates

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About