Momentary reward induce changes in excitability of primary motor cortex

Thabit, Mohamed N.; Nakatsuka, Masahiro; Koganemaru, Satoko; Fawi, Gharib; Fukuyama, Hidenao; Mima, Tatsuya

doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2011.02.021

Cited by 57 publications

(77 citation statements)

References 101 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They also showed that monetary amount does not modulate motor excitability when participants simply observe reward without having to take action. Similar effects by monetary reward on M1 excitability have been recently reported with other paradigms and experimental setups (Klein-Flü gge & Bestmann, 2012;Suzuki et al, 2014;Thabit et al, 2011).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 62%

“…Thus, corticospinal excitability and emotional experience of two independent groups of participants were tested while manipulating the monetary outcomes (win/loss/no change) and the sense of responsibility (choice/follow) associated with a gambling task. The current study significantly expands upon previous investigations of the effect of reward on M1 excitability (e.g., Klein-Flü gge & Bestmann, 2012;Suzuki et al, 2014;Thabit et al, 2011) by including monetary loss as possible outcome condition. This manipulation allowed us to examine the effect of the retrospective counterfactual thinking on motor excitability, when a monetary loss outcome was preceded by an action of key selection (i.e., in the choice group).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…Some studies have focused on the anticipatory processing of upcoming potential rewards that occurs immediately before and during the selection of an appropriate action aimed at getting the rewards (Klein-Flü gge & Bestmann, 2012; Freeman, Razhas, & Aron, 2014; Gupta & Aron, 2011) or even in the absence of any motor requirement (e.g., slot machine paradigm; Kapogiannis, Campion, Grafman, & Wassermann, 2008). Other studies have explored the effect of seeing pictures of coins relative to abstract symbols presented soon after the execution of an action (Suzuki et al, 2014;Thabit et al, 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Counterfactual thinking affects the excitability of the motor cortex

Vicario

Rafal

Avenanti

2015

Cortex

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 62%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Counterfactual thinking affects the excitability of the motor cortex

Vicario

Rafal

Avenanti

2015

Cortex

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…This in turn may lead to the encoding of longer-term representations of motor learning in M1. The hypothesis that reward-related midbrain dopaminergic signals modulate M1 activity is supported by findings that reward modulates M1 excitability in neurologically intact adults (Thabit et al 2011) but not in PD patients (Kapogiannis et al 2011). In PD, a rewarded motor outcome that occurs as a result of executing the adapted movement might elicit a blunted response from midbrain dopaminergic neurons and lead to attenuated modulation of M1 excitability and thus impaired encoding of longer-term representations of motor learning in M1.…”

Section: Neural Mechanisms Underlying Savingsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Impaired savings despite intact initial learning of motor adaptation in Parkinson’s disease

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In motor adaptation, the occurrence of savings (faster relearning of a previously learned motor adaptation task) has been explained in terms of operant reinforcement learning (Huang et al. in Neuron 70(4):787-801, 2011), which is thought to associate an adapted motor command with outcome success during repeated execution of the adapted movement. There is some evidence for deficient savings in Parkinson's Disease (PD), which might result from deficient operant reinforcement processes. However, this evidence is compromised by limited adaptation training during initial learning and by multi-target adaptation, which reduces the number of reinforced movement repetitions for each target. Here, we examined savings in PD patients and controls following overlearning with a single target. PD patients showed less savings than controls after successive adaptation and deadaptation blocks within the same test session, as well as less savings across test sessions separated by a 24-h delay. It is argued that impaired blunted dopaminergic signals in PD impairs the modulation of dopaminergic signals to the motor cortex in response to rewarding motor outcomes, thus impairing the association of the adapted motor command with rewarding motor outcomes. Consequently, the previously adapted motor command is not preferentially selected during relearning, and savings is impaired.

show abstract

“…Previous research has shown that visual input can alter the excitability of sensorimotor networks (Taylor-Clarke et al, 2002;Saucedo Marquez et al, 2011), and that motor cortex excitability depends on reward-related contingencies (Thabit et al, 2011). We avoided such ongoing changes in excitability by holding constant the visual stimuli and behavioral requirements of our task.…”

Section: The Influence Of Attention On Tms-induced Plasticitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Visual Attentional Load Influences Plasticity in the Human Motor Cortex

Kamke¹,

Hall²,

Lye³

et al. 2012

J. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Neural plasticity plays a critical role in learning, memory, and recovery from injury to the nervous system. Although much is known about the physical and physiological determinants of plasticity, little is known about the influence of cognitive factors. In this study, we investigated whether selective attention plays a role in modifying changes in neural excitability reflecting long-term potentiation (LTP)-like plasticity. We induced LTP-like effects in the hand area of the human motor cortex using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). During the induction of plasticity, participants engaged in a visual detection task with either low or high attentional demands. Changes in neural excitability were assessed by measuring motor-evoked potentials in a small hand muscle before and after the TMS procedures. In separate experiments plasticity was induced either by paired associative stimulation (PAS) or intermittent theta-burst stimulation (iTBS). Because these procedures induce different forms of LTP-like effects, they allowed us to investigate the generality of any attentional influence on plasticity. In both experiments reliable changes in motor cortex excitability were evident under low-load conditions, but this effect was eliminated under high-attentional load. In a third experiment we investigated whether the attentional task was associated with ongoing changes in the excitability of motor cortex, but found no difference in evoked potentials across the levels of attentional load. Our findings indicate that in addition to their role in modifying sensory processing, mechanisms of attention can also be a potent modulator of cortical plasticity.

show abstract

Momentary reward induce changes in excitability of primary motor cortex

Cited by 57 publications

References 101 publications

Counterfactual thinking affects the excitability of the motor cortex

Counterfactual thinking affects the excitability of the motor cortex

Impaired savings despite intact initial learning of motor adaptation in Parkinson’s disease

Visual Attentional Load Influences Plasticity in the Human Motor Cortex

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About