Unravelling the Modulation of Intracortical Inhibition During Motor Imagery: An Adaptive Threshold-Hunting Study

Neige, Cécilia; Monany, Dylan Rannaud; Stinear, Cathy M.; Byblow, Winston D.; Papaxanthis, Charalambos; Lebon, Florent

doi:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2020.03.038

Cited by 19 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Figure 1). In addition to inter-regional inhibitory influences, motor imagery has been shown to be associated with modulations of short-interval intracortical inhibition within the primary motor cortex itself (Neige et al, 2020). Third, downstream regions in the cerebellum (e.g., Lotze et al, 1999), in the brainstem (e.g., Jeannerod, 2001Jeannerod, , 2006a, or at the spinal level may contribute to motor inhibition at a later stage.…”

Section: Cognitive and Neural Mechanisms Supporting Motor Inhibitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of motor inhibition during covert speech production

Nalborczyk¹,

Debarnot²,

Longcamp³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Covert speech is accompanied by a subjective multisensory experience with auditory and kinaesthetic components. An influential hypothesis states that these sensory percepts result from a simulation of the corresponding motor action that relies on the same internal models recruited for the control of overt speech. This simulationnist view raises the question of how it is possible to imagine speech without executing it. In this perspective, we discuss the possible role(s) played by motor inhibition during covert speech production. We suggest that considering covert speech as an inhibited form of overt speech maps naturally to the purported progressive internalisation of overt speech during childhood. However, we argue that the role of motor inhibition may differ widely across different forms of covert speech (e.g., condensed vs. expanded covert speech) and that considering this variety helps reconciling seemingly contradictory findings from the neuroimaging literature.

show abstract

Section: Cognitive and Neural Mechanisms Supporting Motor Inhibitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of motor inhibition during covert speech production

Nalborczyk¹,

Debarnot²,

Longcamp³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This choice was made to avoid any fatigue effect that might have potentially confounded the results obtained. Moreover, both SICI MEPTEST and SICI Mmax modulations also depend on CS intensity and interstimulus interval (ISI) duration [6,12,[51][52][53], two fixed parameters whose effects were not assessed in the current study. The CS intensity was fixed at 70% of MT calculated according to each levels of contraction.…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 94%

Influence of Voluntary Contraction Level, Test Stimulus Intensity and Normalization Procedures on the Evaluation of Short-Interval Intracortical Inhibition

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Short-interval intracortical inhibition (SICI) represents an inhibitory phenomenon acting at the cortical level. However, SICI estimation is based on the amplitude of a motor-evoked potential (MEP), which depends on the discharge of spinal motoneurones and the generation of compound muscle action potential (M-wave). In this study, we underpin the importance of taking into account the proportion of spinal motoneurones that are activated or not when investigating the SICI of the right flexor carpi radialis (normalization with maximal M-wave (Mmax) and MEPtest, respectively), in 15 healthy subjects. We probed SICI changes according to various MEPtest amplitudes that were modulated actively (four levels of muscle contraction: rest, 10%, 20% and 30% of maximal voluntary contraction (MVC)) and passively (two intensities of test transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS): 120 and 130% of motor thresholds). When normalized to MEPtest, SICI remained unchanged by stimulation intensity and only decreased at 30% of MVC when compared with rest. However, when normalized to Mmax, we provided the first evidence of a strong individual relationship between SICI and MEPtest, which was ultimately independent from experimental conditions (muscle states and TMS intensities). Under similar experimental conditions, it is thus possible to predict SICI individually from a specific level of corticospinal excitability in healthy subjects.

show abstract

“…If not, the operation was reiterated after eight stimulations at 160% of the rMT. For the rest of the experiment, we considered MEP target as half of MEP max amplitude ( Pitcher et al., 2015 ; Neige et al., 2020 ). MEP Target was set at 124.8 ± 11.52% and 123.39 ± 12.61% (mean ± SD) of rMT for Control and MP groups, respectively.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%