Physiological Markers of Motor Inhibition during Human Behavior

Duqué, Julie; Greenhouse, Ian; Labruna, Ludovica; Ivry, Richard B.

doi:10.1016/j.tins.2017.02.006

Cited by 223 publications

(276 citation statements)

References 149 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

228

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This H-reflex presetting in a ''medium state" in non-anticipated perturbations and during stance seems functionally adequate as it may allow immediate up-or down-regulation of the reflex response. It was previously demonstrated that MEPs (Duque et al, 2017) and SICI (Reynolds and Ashby, 1999;Hummel et al, 2009) that were recorded shortly before the onset of nonvoluntary movements (e.g., responses to perturbations) were not modulated (Petersen et al, 2009). Our results -similar SOL MEP-sizes across all three perturbation conditions and during upright stance -are in line with this finding, which suggest that corticospinal excitability was not altered during the preparatory setting.…”

Section: Preparatory Settingsupporting

confidence: 91%

Preparatory cortical and spinal settings to counteract anticipated and non-anticipated perturbations

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-Little is known about how the central nervous system prepares postural responses differently in anticipated compared to non-anticipated perturbations. To investigate this, participants were exposed to translational and rotational perturbations presented in a blocked (anticipated) and a random (non-anticipated) design. The preparatory setting ('central set') was measured by H-reflexes, motor-evoked potentials (MEPs), and short-interval intracortical inhibition (SICI) shortly before perturbation onset in the soleus of 15 healthy adults. Additionally, the behavioral consequences of differential preparatory settings were analyzed by comparing the short-(SLR), medium-(MLR), and longlatency response (LLR) of the soleus after anticipated and non-anticipated rotations and translations. H-reflexes elicited before perturbation were different between conditions (p = 0.023) with larger amplitudes in anticipated translations compared to anticipated rotations (37.0%; p = 0.048). Reduced SICI was found in the three conditions containing perturbations compared to static standing (p < 0.001). Muscular responses assessed after perturbations remained unchanged for the SLR and MLR, whereas the LLR was decreased in anticipated rotations (À36.2%; p = 0.002) and increased in anticipated translations (16.7%; p = 0.046) compared to the corresponding non-anticipated perturbation. As the SLR and MLR are organized at the spinal and the LLR at the cortical level, the preparatory setting seems to mainly influence cortically mediated postural responses. However, the modulation of the H-reflex before anticipated perturbations indicates that supraspinal centers adjusted Ia-afferent transmission for the soleus in a perturbationspecific manner. Intracortical inhibition was also modulated but differentiates to a lesser extent only between perturbation conditions and unperturbed stance.

show abstract

Section: Preparatory Settingsupporting

confidence: 91%

Preparatory cortical and spinal settings to counteract anticipated and non-anticipated perturbations

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…35 Moreover, recent TMS studies in humans measuring corticospinal excitability observed preparatory inhibition, consistent with the broad suppressive effect by the STN. 43 Thus, the relative RT speeding on conflict trials in the Ready period that we observed for stimulation might fit this ‘clearing alternatives’ view. Moreover, this RT speeding in the absence of any impact on errors suggests that Ready stimulation may have improved performance.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 63%

Event‐related deep brain stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus affects conflict processing

Ghahremani

Aron

Udupa

et al. 2018

Annals of Neurology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…; Duque et al . ; Massé‐Alarie et al . ), suggesting the existence of different mechanisms between these two processes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of movement‐related pain on behaviour and corticospinal excitability changes associated with arm movement preparation

Neige

Mavromatis

Gagné

et al. 2018

The Journal of Physiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When a movement repeatedly generates pain, we anticipate movement-related pain and establish self-protective strategies during motor preparation, but the underlying mechanisms remains poorly understood. The current study investigated the effect of movement-related pain anticipation on the modulation of behaviour and corticospinal excitability during the preparation of arm movements. Participants completed an instructed-delay reaction-time (RT) task consisting of elbow flexions and extensions instructed by visual cues. Nociceptive laser stimulations (unconditioned stimuli) were applied to the lateral epicondyle during movement execution in a specific direction (CS+) but not in the other (CS-), depending on experimental group. During motor preparation, transcranial magnetic stimulation was used to measure corticospinal excitability in the biceps brachii (BB). RT and peak end-point velocity were also measured. Neurophysiological results revealed an opposite modulation of corticospinal excitability in BB depending on whether it plays an agonist (i.e. flexion) or antagonist (i.e. extension) role for the CS+ movements (P < 0.001). Moreover, behavioural results showed that for the CS+ movements RT did not change relative to baseline, whereas the CS- movements were initiated more quickly (P = 0.023) and the CS+ flexion movements were faster relative to the CS- flexion movements (P < 0.001). This is consistent with the pain adaptation theory which proposes that in order to protect the body from further pain, agonist muscle activity is reduced and antagonist muscle activity is increased. If these strategies are initially relevant and lead to short-term pain alleviation, they may potentially have detrimental long-term consequences and lead to the development of chronic pain.

show abstract

Physiological Markers of Motor Inhibition during Human Behavior

Cited by 223 publications

References 149 publications

Preparatory cortical and spinal settings to counteract anticipated and non-anticipated perturbations

Preparatory cortical and spinal settings to counteract anticipated and non-anticipated perturbations

Event‐related deep brain stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus affects conflict processing

Effect of movement‐related pain on behaviour and corticospinal excitability changes associated with arm movement preparation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About