Neuronal Correlates of a Perceptual Decision in Ventral Premotor Cortex

Romo, Ranulfo; Hernandez, Antonio; Zainos, Antonio

doi:10.1016/s0896-6273(03)00817-1

Cited by 305 publications

(358 citation statements)

References 33 publications

(7 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

324

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Accordingly, it remains to be determined whether motor learning leads to changes in somatosensory function in sensory or motor areas or the two in combination. Having somatosensory effects in motor areas of the brain would not be all that surprising, as there is ample evidence that cortical motor areas are extensively involved in somatosensory function (Romo et al 2004;Rosén and Asanuma 1972;Wong et al 1978).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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: 99%

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

“…We found that the activity of the recorded neurons of several cortical areas encodes f1 in a monotonic firing rate code beginning in the primary somatosensory cortex (5-7), continuing in the secondary somatosensory cortex (5), the ventral premotor cortex (19), the prefrontal cortex (10), and the medial premotor cortex (MPc) (18). Except for the primary somatosensory cortex, these cortical areas encode information of f1 during the delay period between f1 and f2 (5,10,11,(17)(18)(19). During presentation of f2, some neurons of all these cortical areas respond to f2, but some other neurons reflect past information of f1, or of the difference between f2 and f1, and generate a differential response consistent with the decision motor report (17)(18)(19).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Except for the primary somatosensory cortex, these cortical areas encode information of f1 during the delay period between f1 and f2 (5,10,11,(17)(18)(19). During presentation of f2, some neurons of all these cortical areas respond to f2, but some other neurons reflect past information of f1, or of the difference between f2 and f1, and generate a differential response consistent with the decision motor report (17)(18)(19). In this chain of neural processes, the primary motor cortex becomes engaged only during the motor report period (19,21).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Neural correlates of a postponed decision report

Lemus

Hernandez

Luna

et al. 2007

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Depending on environmental demands, a decision based on a sensory evaluation may be either immediately reported or postponed for later report. If postponed, the decision must be held in memory. But what exactly is stored by the underlying memory circuits, the final decision itself or the sensory information that led to it? Here, we report that, during a postponed decision report period, the activity of medial premotor cortex neurons encodes both the result of the sensory evaluation that corresponds to the monkey's possible choices and past sensory information on which the decision is based. These responses could switch back and forth with remarkable flexibility across the postponed decision report period. Moreover, these responses covaried with the animal's decision report. We propose that maintaining in working memory the original stimulus information on which the decision is based could serve to continuously update the postponed decision report in this task.medial premotor cortex ͉ monkeys ͉ sensory discrimination ͉ working memory S tudies in behaving monkeys that combine psychophysical and neurophysiological experiments have provided new insights into how a neural representation of a sensory stimulus relates to perception (1-8), memory (9-12), and decision making (13-19). In particular, there has been important progress regarding the neural codes associated with these cognitive functions in the visual and somatic modality (20,21). The basic philosophy of this approach has been to investigate these cognitive functions by using highly simplified stimuli, so that diverse subcortical and cortical areas can be studied during the same behavior.In the task we previously used, monkeys report whether the second stimulus frequency (f2) is higher or lower than the first stimulus frequency (f1) (22). This cognitive operation requires that subjects compare information of f1 temporally stored in working memory to the current information of f2 to form a decision of whether f2 Ͼ f1 or f2 Ͻ f1, and to immediately report the outcome by pressing one of two push buttons. We found that the activity of the recorded neurons of several cortical areas encodes f1 in a monotonic firing rate code beginning in the primary somatosensory cortex (5-7), continuing in the secondary somatosensory cortex (5), the ventral premotor cortex (19), the prefrontal cortex (10), and the medial premotor cortex (MPc) (18). Except for the primary somatosensory cortex, these cortical areas encode information of f1 during the delay period between f1 and f2 (5,10,11,(17)(18)(19). During presentation of f2, some neurons of all these cortical areas respond to f2, but some other neurons reflect past information of f1, or of the difference between f2 and f1, and generate a differential response consistent with the decision motor report (17)(18)(19). In this chain of neural processes, the primary motor cortex becomes engaged only during the motor report period (19,21). These results showed that the stimulus parameters of f1 and f2 and their interactions can be dec...

show abstract

“…TMS did not affect performance if delivered to the ipsilateral SI at any time point. The researchers proposed that the tactile memory trace was held initially for a certain period of time in both SI and SII, but later it would be held in higher level of cortex, such as the premotor and prefrontal cortex (Romo et al, 1999;Brody et al, 2003;Passingham and Sakai, 2004;Romo et al, 2004;Hernandez et al, 2002). A similar conclusion was drawn by a recent human fMRI study on haptic working memory (Kaas et al, 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 86%

Neural activities of tactile cross-modal working memory in humans: an event-related potential study

Ohara

Wang

et al. 2008

Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the present study, we examined the neural mechanisms underlying crossmodal working memory by analyzing scalp-recorded event-related potentials (ERPs) from normal human subjects performing tactile-tactile unimodal or tactile-auditory crossmodal delay tasks that consisted of stimulus-1 (S-1, tactile), interval (delay), and stimulus-2 (S-2, tactile or auditory). We hypothesized that there are sequentially discrete task-correlated changes in ERPs representing neural processes of tactile working memory, and in addition, significant differences would be observed in ERPs between the unimodal task and the crossmodal task.In comparison to the ERP components in the unimodal task, two late positive ERP components (LPC-1 and LPC-2) evoked by the tactile S-1 in the delay of the crossmodal task were enhanced by expectation of the associated auditory S-2 presented at the end of the delay. Such enhancement might represent neural activities involved in crossmodal association between the tactile stimulus and the auditory stimulus. Later in the delay, a late negative component (LNC) was observed. The amplitude of LNC depended on information retained during the delay, and when the same information was retained, this amplitude was not influenced by modality or location of S-2 (auditory S-2 through headphones, or tactile S-2 on the left index finger). LNC might represent the neural activity involved in working memory. The above results suggest that the sequential ERP changes in the present study represent temporally distinguishable neural processes, such as the crossmodal association and crossmodal working memory.

show abstract

Neuronal Correlates of a Perceptual Decision in Ventral Premotor Cortex

Cited by 305 publications

References 33 publications

Sensorimotor adaptation changes the neural coding of somatosensory stimuli

Sensorimotor adaptation changes the neural coding of somatosensory stimuli

Neural correlates of a postponed decision report

Neural activities of tactile cross-modal working memory in humans: an event-related potential study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About