Reciprocal effect of single corticomotoneuronal cells on wrist extensor and flexor muscle activity in the primate

Cheney, Paul D.; Kasser, Richard J.; Holsapple, James

doi:10.1016/0006-8993(82)91043-5

Cited by 21 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The schematic shown in Fig. 15 is, of course, an extreme oversimplification and does not even take into account the fact that the same PTNs can contact both excitatory and inhibitory elements within the spinal cord ( Cheney et al 1982 , 1985 ; Nishimura et al 2013 ). It does, however, offer a starting point in explaining the observation that there are PTNs whose firing patterns are best explained if they were most interested in movement suppression—movement onset does not occur until these cells reduce their firing rate.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Corticospinal gating during action preparation and movement in the primate motor cortex

Soteropoulos

2018

Journal of Neurophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During everyday actions there is a need to be able to withhold movements until the most appropriate time. This motor inhibition is likely to rely on multiple cortical and subcortical areas, but the primary motor cortex (M1) is a critical component of this process. However, the mechanisms behind this inhibition are unclear, particularly the role of the corticospinal system, which is most often associated with driving muscles and movement. To address this, recordings were made from identified corticospinal (PTN, n = 94) and corticomotoneuronal (CM, n = 16) cells from M1 during an instructed delay reach-to-grasp task. The task involved the animals withholding action for ~2 s until a GO cue, after which they were allowed to reach and perform the task for a food reward. Analysis of the firing of cells in M1 during the delay period revealed that, as a population, non-CM PTNs showed significant suppression in their activity during the cue and instructed delay periods, while CM cells instead showed a facilitation during the preparatory delay. Analysis of cell activity during movement also revealed that a substantial minority of PTNs (27%) showed suppressed activity during movement, a response pattern more suited to cells involved in withholding rather than driving movement. These results demonstrate the potential contributions of the M1 corticospinal system to withholding of actions and highlight that suppression of activity in M1 during movement preparation is not evenly distributed across different neural populations.NEW & NOTEWORTHY Recordings were made from identified corticospinal (PTN) and corticomotoneuronal (CM) cells during an instructed delay task. Activity of PTNs as a population was suppressed during the delay, in contrast to CM cells, which were facilitated. A minority of PTNs showed a rate profile that might be expected from inhibitory cells and could suggest that they play an active role in action suppression, most likely through downstream inhibitory circuits.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Corticospinal gating during action preparation and movement in the primate motor cortex

Soteropoulos

2018

Journal of Neurophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Since the CST makes its densest termination among these interneurons,25, 85, 135 it is likely to be a major source of descending input to them. CM cells can act through both their monosynaptic excitatory pathway and through oligosynaptic excitatory and inhibitory pathways 22, 34, 35…”

Section: Monosynaptic and Oligosynaptic Pathways Underlying Cortical mentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing the function of the corticospinal system in different species: Organizational differences for motor specialization?

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An appreciation of the comparative functions of the corticospinal tract is of direct relevance to the understanding of how results from animal models can advance knowledge of the human motor system and its disorders. Two critical functions of the corticospinal tract are discussed: first, the role of descending projections to the dorsal horn in the control of sensory afferent input, and second, the capacity of direct cortico-motoneuronal projections to support voluntary execution of skilled hand and finger movements. We stress that there are some important differences in corticospinal projections from different cortical regions within a particular species and that these projections support different functions. Therefore, any differences in the organization of corticospinal projections across species may well reflect differences in their functional roles. Such differences most likely reflect features of the sensorimotor behavior that are characteristic of that species. Insights into corticospinal function in different animal models are of direct relevance to understanding the human motor system, providing they are interpreted in relation to the functions they underpin in a given model. Studies in non-human primates will continue to be needed for understanding special features of the human motor system, including feed-forward control of skilled hand movements. These movements are often particularly vulnerable to neurological disease, including stroke, cerebral palsy, movement disorders, spinal injury, and motor neuron disease.

show abstract

“…Direct measurements from the central nervous system have provided indications that specific cells in the cerebellar cortex (32) and in the red nucleus (7) are selectively activated during coactivation and reciprocal activation (6) of agonist-antagonist muscles in the upper limb. Cheney et al (6) also found cells in the motor cortex that were selectively activated preceding reciprocal activation of agonist-antagonist muscles.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Voluntary control of motor units in human antagonist muscles: coactivation and reciprocal activation

Luca

Mambrito²

1987

Journal of Neurophysiology

318

150

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1. Myoelectric (ME) activity of several motor units was detected simultaneously from the human flexor pollicis longus and extensor pollicis longus muscles, the only two muscles that control the interphalangeal joint of the thumb. The ME signals were detected while the subjects produced isometric force outputs to track three different paradigms: triangular trajectories, random-force trajectories requiring both flexion and extension contractions, and net zero force resulting from stiffening the joint by voluntarily coactivating both muscles. 2. The ME signals were decomposed into their constituent motor-unit action potential trains. The firing rate behavior of the concurrently active motor units was studied using cross-correlation techniques. 3. During isometric contractions, the firing rates of motor units within a muscle were greatly cross-correlated with essentially zero time shift with respect to each other. This observation confirms our previous report of this behavior, which has been called common drive. Common drive was also found among the motor units of the agonist and antagonist muscles during voluntary coactivation to stiffen the interphalangeal joint. This observation suggests two interesting points: 1) that the common drive mechanism has a component of central origin, and 2) that the central nervous system may control the motoneuron pools of an agonist-antagonist muscle pair as if they were one pool when both are performing the same task. 4. During force reversals, the firing rates of motor units reverse in an orderly manner: earlier recruited motor units decrease their firing rate before later recruited motor units. This orderly reversal of firing rates is consistent with the concept of orderly recruitment and derecruitment. 5. A control scheme is suggested to explain the behavior of the motor units in both muscles during force reversal. It consists of centrally mediated reciprocally organized flexion and extension commands along with a common coactivation command to both muscles. This control scheme allows for coactivation and reciprocal activation of an agonist-antagonist set. 6. The agonist-antagonist pair was observed to generate a net force in two control modalities: proportional activation and reciprocal activation. In proportional activation, the agonist-antagonist set is coactivated during either of two states: when uncertainty exists in the required task or when a compensatory force contraction is perceived to be required.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

show abstract

Reciprocal effect of single corticomotoneuronal cells on wrist extensor and flexor muscle activity in the primate

Cited by 21 publications

References 8 publications

Corticospinal gating during action preparation and movement in the primate motor cortex

Corticospinal gating during action preparation and movement in the primate motor cortex

Comparing the function of the corticospinal system in different species: Organizational differences for motor specialization?

Voluntary control of motor units in human antagonist muscles: coactivation and reciprocal activation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About