Impending Electrical Shock Can Affect Response Force in a Simple Reaction Task

Jaśkowskí, Piotr; Wróblewski, Marek; Hojan‐Jezierska, Dorota

doi:10.2466/pms.1994.79.2.995

Cited by 14 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…More recently, electrical stimuli have been also applied over arm muscles to facilitate movement anticipation in healthy subjects [ 27 ], and to trigger upper limb movements in stroke patients [ 76 ]. In RT studies, this facilitation has been attributed to a so-called “shock effect” when explored with low stimulus intensities (2–7 mA) [ 77 ], and was later termed StartReact effect when associated with startle reflex signs [ 78 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

StartReact effects in first dorsal interosseous muscle are absent in a pinch task, but present when combined with elbow flexion

Castellote

Kofler²

2018

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo provide a neurophysiological tool for assessing sensorimotor pathways, which may differ for those involving distal muscles in simple tasks from those involving distal muscles in a kinetic chain task, or proximal muscles in both.MethodsWe compared latencies and magnitudes of motor responses in a reaction time paradigm in a proximal (biceps brachii, BB) and a distal (first dorsal interosseous, FDI) muscle following electrical stimuli used as imperative signal (IS) delivered to the index finger. These stimuli were applied during different motor tasks: simple tasks involving either one muscle, e.g. flexing the elbow for BB (FLEX), or pinching a pen for FDI (PINCH); combined tasks engaging both muscles by pinching and flexing simultaneously (PINCH-FLEX). Stimuli were of varying intensity and occasionally elicited a startle response, and a StartReact effect.ResultsIn BB, response latencies decreased gradually and response amplitudes increased progressively with increasing IS intensities for non-startling trials, while for trials containing startle responses, latencies were uniformly shortened and response amplitudes similarly augmented across all IS intensities in both FLEX and PINCH-FLEX. In FDI, response latencies decreased gradually and response amplitudes increased progressively with increasing IS intensities in both PINCH and PINCH-FLEX for non-startling trials, but, unlike in BB for the simple task, in PINCH for trials containing startle responses as well. In PINCH-FLEX, FDI latencies were uniformly shortened and amplitudes similarly increased across all stimulus intensities whenever startle signs were present.ConclusionsOur results suggest the presence of different sensorimotor pathways supporting a dissociation between simple tasks that involve distal upper limb muscles (FDI in PINCH) from simple tasks involving proximal muscles (BB in FLEX), and combined tasks that engage both muscles (FDI and BB in PINCH-FLEX), all in accordance with differential importance in the control of movements by cortical and subcortical structures.SignificanceSimple assessment tools may provide useful information regarding the differential involvement of sensorimotor pathways in the control of both simple and combined tasks that engage proximal and distal muscles.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

StartReact effects in first dorsal interosseous muscle are absent in a pinch task, but present when combined with elbow flexion

Castellote

Kofler²

2018

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The facilitatory effect of loud acoustic stimulation is large and robust, and has been observed in a number of recent studies using a variety of tasks and contexts (Valls‐Sole, , for a review). The effects of electric stimulation on the release of motor actions, on the other hand, have not been systematically explored (but see Jaskowski et al, ; Ruegg & Eichenberger, ), and we are not aware of any direct comparisons between the two types of stimuli in the context of the StartReact literature.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Their interpretation was that the visual stimuli induced lower “phasic arousal” (Sanders, ) than acoustic stimuli, and therefore did not influence later motoric stages. Observations that random, between‐trial delivery of electric stimulation influenced both response latency and force suggest that electrical stimulation has powerful (“tonic”) arousal effects (Jaskowski, Wroblewski, & Hojan‐Jezierska, ), and might thereby provide a particularly effective form of accessory stimulation to increase movement vigor. Here, we set out to determine whether electric accessory stimulation can facilitate movement execution (e.g., RT and vigor) via phasic arousal, and to compare the effects with those elicited by accessory acoustic stimulation.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The facilitation of motor actions by acoustic and electric stimulation

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The presentation of a loud acoustic stimulus during the preparation of motor actions can both speed movement initiation and increase response vigor. Several recent studies have explored this phenomenon as a means to investigate the mechanisms and neural correlates of movement preparation. Here, we sought to determine the generality of this effect across sensory modalities, and in particular whether unexpected somatosensory stimulation can facilitate movements in a manner similar to loud sounds. We show that electric and acoustic stimuli can be similarly effective in inducing the early release of motor actions, in both reaction time and anticipatory timing tasks. Consistent with recent response activation models of motor preparation, we also demonstrate that increasing the intensity of electric stimuli induces both progressive decreases in reaction time and increases in response vigor. Additionally, we show that the early release of motor actions can be induced by electric stimuli targeting predominantly either muscle afferents or skin afferents. Finally, we show that simultaneous acoustic and electric stimulation leads to earlier releases of anticipatory actions than either unimodal stimulus. These findings may lead to new avenues for experimental and clinical exploitation of the effects of accessory sensory information on movement preparation and initiation.

show abstract

“…when the time for response was limited (Jaśkowski et al, 1994b(Jaśkowski et al, , 2000Van der Lubbe et al, 2001), knowledge of results, i.e. when RT results were fed back after every trial (Jaśkowski and Waodarczyk, 1997) and occasional delivery of task-irrelevant electrical shocks (Jaśkowski et al, 1994c). Correspondingly, suboptimal activation induced by sleep deficit leads to delay of RTs and weakening of RF (Waodarczyk et al, 2002).…”

Section: Response Forcementioning

confidence: 98%