‘Gating’ of somatosensory evoked potentials begins before the onset of voluntary movement in man

Starr, Arnold; Cohen, Leo G.

doi:10.1016/0006-8993(85)90377-4

Cited by 109 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Transient reductions in SEPs have been reported previously in conjunction with finger and limb movement (Papakostopoulos et al 1975;Rushton et al 1981;Starr and Cohen 1985). The reduction has been attributed to the idea that the nervous system suppresses sensory inflow associated with self-initiated movement.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 78%

Sensorimotor adaptation changes the neural coding of somatosensory stimuli

Nasir

Darainy

Ostry

2013

Journal of Neurophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nasir SM, Darainy M, Ostry DJ. Sensorimotor adaptation changes the neural coding of somatosensory stimuli. J Neurophysiol 109: 2077-2085, 2013. First published January 23, 2013 doi:10.1152/jn.00719.2012.-Motor learning is reflected in changes to the brain's functional organization as a result of experience. We show here that these changes are not limited to motor areas of the brain and indeed that motor learning also changes sensory systems. We test for plasticity in sensory systems using somatosensory evoked potentials (SEPs). A robotic device is used to elicit somatosensory inputs by displacing the arm in the direction of applied force during learning. We observe that following learning there are short latency changes to the response in somatosensory areas of the brain that are reliably correlated with the magnitude of motor learning: subjects who learn more show greater changes in SEP magnitude. The effects we observe are tied to motor learning. When the limb is displaced passively, such that subjects experience similar movements but without experiencing learning, no changes in the evoked response are observed. Sensorimotor adaptation thus alters the neural coding of somatosensory stimuli. motor learning; somatosensory evoked potential; reaching movement IS THE NEUROPLASTICITY THAT is associated with motor learning limited to motor areas of the brain, or do the effects of learning extend into nonmotor areas and notably into sensory systems? It is known that there are substantial anatomical interconnections linking the brain's motor and somatosensory regions. Cortical motor areas receive direct inputs from primary (Darian-Smith et al. 1993;Jones et al. 1978) and second somatosensory cortex (Cipolloni and Pandya 1999;Krubitzer and Kaas 1990) and from parietal areas 5 and 7 (Ghosh and Gattera 1995;Petrides and Pandya 1984). Somatosensory areas get direct cortical inputs from primary motor cortex (Darian-Smith et al. 1993;Jones et al. 1978;Krubitzer and Kaas 1990), premotor cortex (Cipolloni and Pandya 1999), and from supplementary motor area (Cipolloni and Pandya 1999;Jones et al. 1978). A change in somatosensory function in association with motor learning would seem to be a natural by-product of this anatomical connectivity. However, apart from behavioral studies (Cressman and Henriques 2009;Haith et al. 2008;Ostry et al. 2010;Wong et al. 2011) and a recent analysis of changes to resting-state networks in association with motor learning (Vahdat et al. 2011), there is little direct evidence that motor learning produces changes in sensory systems. Here we show that motor learning indeed alters the response of somatosensory areas of the brain. The changes we observe are substantially linked to motor learning in the sense that they vary in magnitude with motor learning, and they are not obtained when subjects passively experience the same movement kinematics, but do not experience learning.We studied motor learning using a force-field adaptation paradigm (Shadmehr and Mussa-Ivaldi 1994) in which subjects had to re...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 78%

Sensorimotor adaptation changes the neural coding of somatosensory stimuli

Nasir

Darainy

Ostry

2013

Journal of Neurophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It has been reported that cortical somatosensory evoked potentials are decreased in amplitude during movement (Giblin 1964;Coquery and Vitton 1972;Hazemann et al 1975;Papakostopoulos et al 1975;Rushton et al 1981;Chapman et al 1984;Start and Cohen 1985). One might speculate that if subjective intensity is determined on the basis of the central neural code then, when neural discharge is diminished, there would be a parallel decrease in the subjective intensity of the stimulus.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sensory perception during movement in man

et al. 1987

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary. The ability of subjects to perceive innocuous stimuli in the presence and absence of movement was evaluated using electrical stimulation of the skin. The subjective intensity of suprathreshold stimuli was unchanged during movement. Discrimination of small differences in the intensity of suprathreshold stimuli (difference thresholds) was also not altered by movement while, in the same subjects, detection thresholds were increased during movement of the stimulated arm. These results suggest that the elevation of detection thresholds during movement can be explained by masking. Both active and passive movement of the stimulated limb increased detection thresholds, with active movement having a slightly greater and more consistent effect than passive movement. Thus, both central and peripheral feedback factors appear to play a role in diminishing one's ability to detect weak stimuli during movement. Attention was also shown to influence performance of the detection task.

show abstract

“…Gating accompanying both the preparation and the act of movement can be accompanied by an attenuation of sensory processes occurring both before and during the motor activity (Starr et al, 1969;Starr and Cohen, 1985). Gating in the auditory system has been shown to be due to both an attenuation of acoustic input accompanying movementrelated contractions of middle ear muscles (Cannel and Starr, 1963) and to changes in central auditory pathway processing (Starr, 1964;Tapia et al, 1987).…”

Section: Processes Acting To Modulate Evoked Potentialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We do not consider gating to be a mechanism accounting for the attenuation of any of the components defined in this study. For instance, an attenuation of N100 follows the motor response to targets and requires 5-10 s before amplitudes are restored, a time period beyond the ms range usually attributed to gating (Starr and Cohen, 1985).…”

Section: Processes Acting To Modulate Evoked Potentialsmentioning

confidence: 99%