Abstract:Stimulus-triggered averaging (StTA) of forelimb muscle electromyographic (EMG) activity was used to investigate individual forelimb muscle representation within the primary motor cortex (M1) of rhesus macaques with the objective of determining the extent of intra-areal somatotopic organization. Two monkeys were trained to perform a reach-to-grasp task requiring multijoint coordination of the forelimb. EMG activity was simultaneously recorded from 24 forelimb muscles including 5 shoulder, 7 elbow, 5 wrist, 5 di… Show more
“…Because we cannot accurately reconstruct forces and muscle activations from kinematics, we cannot directly test this hypothesis. However, the activity of single neurons in the motor cortex has been shown to drive facilitation and suppression of several muscles (Buys et al, 1986;Griffin et al, 2015;Hudson et al, 2017), consistent with our finding that M1 RFs are large. How forces are encoded in the proprioceptive SCx and how these force signals interact with kinematic ones is largely unknown.…”
Section: Alternate Coordinate Frames Fail To Account Succinctly For Lsupporting
Manual dexterity requires proprioceptive feedback about the state of the hand. To date, study of the neural basis of proprioception in the cortex has focused primarily on reaching movements to the exclusion of hand-specific behaviors such as grasping. To fill this gap, we record both timevarying hand kinematics and neural activity evoked in somatosensory and motor cortices as monkeys grasp a variety of objects. We find that neurons in the somatosensory cortex, as well as in the motor cortex, preferentially track time-varying postures of multi-joint combinations spanning the entire hand. This contrasts with neural responses during reaching movements, which preferentially track time-varying movement kinematics of the arm, such as velocity and speed of the limb, rather than its time-varying postural configuration. These results suggest different representations of arm and hand movements suited to the different functional roles of these two effectors.
“…Because we cannot accurately reconstruct forces and muscle activations from kinematics, we cannot directly test this hypothesis. However, the activity of single neurons in the motor cortex has been shown to drive facilitation and suppression of several muscles (Buys et al, 1986;Griffin et al, 2015;Hudson et al, 2017), consistent with our finding that M1 RFs are large. How forces are encoded in the proprioceptive SCx and how these force signals interact with kinematic ones is largely unknown.…”
Section: Alternate Coordinate Frames Fail To Account Succinctly For Lsupporting
Manual dexterity requires proprioceptive feedback about the state of the hand. To date, study of the neural basis of proprioception in the cortex has focused primarily on reaching movements to the exclusion of hand-specific behaviors such as grasping. To fill this gap, we record both timevarying hand kinematics and neural activity evoked in somatosensory and motor cortices as monkeys grasp a variety of objects. We find that neurons in the somatosensory cortex, as well as in the motor cortex, preferentially track time-varying postures of multi-joint combinations spanning the entire hand. This contrasts with neural responses during reaching movements, which preferentially track time-varying movement kinematics of the arm, such as velocity and speed of the limb, rather than its time-varying postural configuration. These results suggest different representations of arm and hand movements suited to the different functional roles of these two effectors.
“…This would indicate LPMCd CSP proliferation may occur in spinal subsectors mediating proximal limb recovery (e.g., bilaterally in medial lamina VII and lamina VIII). In this regard, a spared LPMCd CSP appears to be in a favorable position to contribute to recovery of postural stabilization and reaching, particularly following compromise of the shoulder/trunk representation of M1 which lies caudal to LPMCd, and directly dorsal to the M1 arm/hand area (Figure a, see area outlined by the dashed red line) (Boudrias et al, ; Darling et al, , ; Hudson, Park, Belhaj‐Saif, & Cheney, ; Kwan, Mackay, Murphy, & Wong, ,b; Weinrich & Wise, ).…”
High‐resolution tract tracing and stereology were used to study the terminal organization of the corticospinal projection (CSP) from the ventral (v) and dorsal (d) regions of the lateral premotor cortex (LPMC) to spinal levels C5–T1. The LPMCv CSP originated from the postarcuate sulcus region, was bilateral, sparse, and primarily targeted the dorsolateral and ventromedial sectors of contralateral lamina VII. The convexity/lateral part of LPMCv did not project below C2. Thus, very little LPMCv corticospinal output reaches the cervical enlargement. In contrast, the LPMCd CSP was 5× more prominent in terminal density. Bilateral terminal labeling occurred in the medial sectors of lamina VII and adjacent lamina VIII, where propriospinal neurons with long‐range bilateral axon projections reside. Notably, lamina VIII also harbors axial motoneurons. Contralateral labeling occurred in the lateral sectors of lamina VII and the dorsomedial quadrant of lamina IX, noted for harboring proximal upper limb flexor motoneurons. Segmentally, the CSP to contralateral laminae VII and IX preferentially innervated C5–C7, which supplies shoulder, elbow, and wrist musculature. In contrast, terminations in axial‐related lamina VIII were distributed bilaterally throughout all cervical enlargement levels, including C8 and T1. These findings demonstrate the LPMCd CSP is structured to influence axial and proximal upper limb movements, supporting Kuypers conceptual view of the LPMCd CSP being a major component of the medial motor control system. Thus, distal upper extremity control influenced by LPMC, including grasping and manipulation, must occur through indirect neural network connections such as corticocortical, subcortical, or intrinsic spinal circuits.
“…Nevertheless, careful use of single-pulse ICMS by Cheney et al . has been important in determining the complex maps of muscle outputs in primary 27 , 28 and secondary 29 , 30 motor areas. These studies have helped to demonstrate the direct, short-latency influence of M1 over forelimb muscles, compared with slower effects evoked from secondary motor areas.…”
Section: Functional Relationship Between Cortico-motoneuronal Cell Acmentioning
The last few years have seen major advances in our understanding of the organisation and function of the corticospinal tract (CST). These have included studies highlighting important species-specific variations in the different functions mediated by the CST. In the primate, the most characteristic feature is direct cortico-motoneuronal (CM) control of muscles, particularly of hand and finger muscles. This system, which is unique to dexterous primates, is probably at its most advanced level in humans. We now know much more about the origin of the CM system within the cortical motor network, and its connectivity within the spinal cord has been quantified. We have learnt much more about how the CM system works in parallel with other spinal circuits receiving input from the CST and how the CST functions alongside other brainstem motor pathways. New work in the mouse has provided fascinating insights into the contribution of the CM system to dexterity. Finally, accumulating evidence for the involvement of CM projections in motor neuron disease has highlighted the importance of advances in basic neuroscience for our understanding and possible treatment of a devastating neurological disease.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.