Sensory and Motor Interfering Influences on Somatosensory Evoked Potentials

Abstract

The interfering influences by which the different components of the early somatosensory evoked potentials are modified are reviewed from both neurophysiologic and clinical perspectives. Special consideration is given to the specific differences between sensory and motor interferences. In this context, the specific effect of the mental movement simulation task on the frontal N30 component is discussed in relation to the involvement of this evoked wave as a physiologic index of the dopaminergic motor pathways. Relevant interfering approaches, including concurrent events ranging from tactile stimulation to locomotion, are reviewed and discussed insofar as these data provide insights into the neurophysiologic processes of interaction between competing internal models controlling motor acts and sensory information.

Frontal phasic and oscillatory generators of the N30 somatosensory evoked potential

“…Indeed, the distinctive contribution of a tangential P30-N30 dipole situated in area 3b and the other oscillating generators of the N30 located outside of the somatosensory cortex and revealed in the present paper are not technically possible as LORETA selects the pattern of activation showing the smoothest solution which best matches best the whole topographical voltage distribution at the latency of the N30 phenomenon. The present localization study corroborates the idea that the N30 wave reflects a first stage in sensorimotor integration processes (Cheron et al, 2000;Hallett, 2000;Rossi et al, 2002;Rossini et al, 1999). This hypothesis is also supported by a wealth of clinical reports (Abbruzzese and Berardelli, 2003;Berardelli et al, 1998;Cheron et al, 1994;Frasson et al, 2001;Murase et al, 2000;Reilly et al, 1992;Rossi et al, 2005;Rossini et al, 1998;Ulivelli et al, 1999) and peculiar physiological behaviors of the N30 wave (Cebolla et al, 2009;Cheron andBorenstein, 1987, 1992;Rossi et al, 2002;Urushihara et al, 2006).…”

Knowing Each Random Error of Our Ways, but Hardly Correcting for It: An Instance of Optimal Performance

“…Rather, the difference between online and offline knowledge about our errors, may be the result of more fundamental differences of how proprioceptive feedback is used when stationary compared to during a movement. For instance, there are several reports that during hand or arm movements tactile sensitivity of the hand is reduced (sensory suppression/gating) [19]–[22]. Our results here suggest the same could be true for proprioceptive information.…”

Non-dominant hand movement facilitates the frontal N30 somatosensory evoked potential

“…The N30 has been investigated under various sensory-motor paradigms and generally been shown to behave similarly to parietal SEP components [7-9] though does display unique modulation independent of parietal SEP components under specific motor-related conditions such as mental imagery and ideation [10,11] as well as a distinct attenuation in Parkinson's disease (PD). The depressed N30 in PD patients can be transiently facilitated with dopamine agonist administration [12,13], pallidotomy [14] or globus pallidus interal segment (GPi)/sub-thalamic nucleus (STN) stimulation [15] and as such, N30 amplitude has been hypothesized to reflect the proper functioning of specific motor pathways linking basal ganglia to frontal cortex [16].…”