scholarly journals Proactive modulation of long-interval intracortical inhibition during response inhibition

2016 ◽  
Vol 116 (2) ◽  
pp. 859-867 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew J. Cowie ◽  
Hayley J. MacDonald ◽  
John Cirillo ◽  
Winston D. Byblow
Keyword(s):  
Evoked Potentials ◽  
Response Inhibition ◽  
Primary Motor Cortex ◽  
Motor Evoked Potentials ◽  
Motor Evoked Potential ◽  
Intracortical Inhibition ◽  
Task Context ◽  
Stop Trial ◽  
First Dorsal Interosseous Muscle ◽  
Dorsal Interosseous Muscle

Daily activities often require sudden cancellation of preplanned movement, termed response inhibition. When only a subcomponent of a whole response must be suppressed (required here on Partial trials), the ensuing component is markedly delayed. The neural mechanisms underlying partial response inhibition remain unclear. We hypothesized that Partial trials would be associated with nonselective corticomotor suppression and that GABAB receptor-mediated inhibition within primary motor cortex might be responsible for the nonselective corticomotor suppression contributing to Partial trial response delays. Sixteen right-handed participants performed a bimanual anticipatory response inhibition task while single- and paired-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation was delivered to elicit motor evoked potentials in the left first dorsal interosseous muscle. Lift times, amplitude of motor evoked potentials, and long-interval intracortical inhibition were examined across the different trial types (Go, Stop-Left, Stop-Right, Stop-Both). Go trials produced a tight distribution of lift times around the target, whereas those during Partial trials (Stop-Left and Stop-Right) were substantially delayed. The modulation of motor evoked potential amplitude during Stop-Right trials reflected anticipation, suppression, and subsequent reinitiation of movement. Importantly, suppression was present across all Stop trial types, indicative of a “default” nonselective inhibitory process. Compared with blocks containing only Go trials, inhibition increased when Stop trials were introduced but did not differ between trial types. The amount of inhibition was positively correlated with lift times during Stop-Right trials. Tonic levels of inhibition appear to be proactively modulated by task context and influence the speed at which unimanual responses occur after a nonselective “brake” is applied.

scholarly journals Between-hand coupling during response inhibition

2019 ◽  
Vol 122 (4) ◽  
pp. 1357-1366 ◽  
Author(s):  
Corey G. Wadsley ◽  
John Cirillo ◽  
Winston D. Byblow
Keyword(s):  
Response Inhibition ◽  
Interference Effect ◽  
Primary Motor Cortex ◽  
Temporal Dynamics ◽  
Motor Evoked Potentials ◽  
Intracortical Inhibition ◽  
The Novel ◽  
Unitary Response ◽  
First Dorsal Interosseous Muscle ◽  
Response Task

Response inhibition reflects the process of terminating inappropriate preplanned or ongoing movements. When one hand is cued to stop after preparing a bimanual response (Partial trial), there is a substantial delay on the responding side. This delay is termed the interference effect and identifies a constraint that limits selective response inhibition. γ-Aminobutyric acid (GABA)-mediated networks within primary motor cortex (M1) may have distinct roles during response inhibition. In this study we examined whether the interference effect is the consequence of between-hand “coupling” into a unitary response and whether this is reflected in GABAergic intracortical inhibition within M1. Eighteen healthy right-handed participants performed a bimanual synchronous and asynchronous anticipatory response inhibition task. Electromyographic recordings were obtained from the first dorsal interosseous muscle bilaterally. Motor evoked potentials were elicited by single- and paired-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation over right M1. As expected, Go trial performance was better with the synchronous compared with the asynchronous version of the task. Paradoxically, response delays during Partial trials were longer with the synchronous compared with the asynchronous task. Although task difficulty did not modulate GABAergic intracortical inhibition, there was a trend for between-hand coupling on asynchronous trials to be associated with greater GABAB receptor-mediated inhibition and lesser recruitment of GABAA receptor-mediated inhibition. The novel findings indicate that the interference effect is in part a consequence of between-hand coupling into a unitary response during movement preparation. The ability to respond independently with the two hands may rely on modulation of distinct inhibitory processes. NEW & NOTEWORTHY The temporal dynamics of an anticipated response task were manipulated to effect the difficulty of behavioral stopping and the underlying effects on motor neurophysiology. There were large response delays during trials where a subcomponent of an upcoming bimanual response was cued to stop in conditions where the anticipated action of the hands were synchronous, but not when asynchronous. Response delays reflected the integration of actions of both hands into a unitary response.

Automatic Recruitment of the Motor System by Undetected Graspable Objects: A Motor-evoked Potential Study

2017 ◽  
Vol 29 (11) ◽  
pp. 1918-1931 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicolas A. McNair ◽  
Ashleigh D. Behrens ◽  
Irina M. Harris
Keyword(s):  
Evoked Potentials ◽  
Visual Processing ◽  
Motor System ◽  
Primary Motor Cortex ◽  
Direct Evidence ◽  
Motor Evoked Potentials ◽  
Motor Evoked Potential ◽  
Motor Action ◽  
Motor Pathway ◽  
The Right

Previous behavioral and neuroimaging studies have suggested that the motor properties associated with graspable objects may be automatically accessed when people passively view these objects. We directly tested this by measuring the excitability of the motor pathway when participants viewed pictures of graspable objects that were presented during the attentional blink (AB), when items frequently go undetected. Participants had to identify two briefly presented objects separated by either a short or long SOA. Motor-evoked potentials were measured from the right hand in response to a single TMS pulse delivered over the left primary motor cortex 250 msec after the onset of the second target. Behavioral results showed poorer identification of objects at short SOA compared with long SOA, consistent with an AB, which did not differ between graspable and nongraspable objects. However, motor-evoked potentials measured during the AB were significantly higher for graspable objects than for nongraspable objects, irrespective of whether the object was successfully identified or undetected. This provides direct evidence that the motor system is automatically activated during visual processing of objects that afford a motor action.

scholarly journals Are ipsilateral motor evoked potentials subject to intracortical inhibition?

2016 ◽  
Vol 115 (3) ◽  
pp. 1735-1739
Author(s):  
Alana B. McCambridge ◽  
James W. Stinear ◽  
Winston D. Byblow
Keyword(s):  
Evoked Potentials ◽  
Primary Motor Cortex ◽  
Biceps Brachii ◽  
Motor Evoked Potentials ◽  
Short Interval ◽  
Conditioning Stimulus ◽  
Elbow Flexion ◽  
Intracortical Inhibition ◽  
Motor Tasks ◽  
Active Motor

Paired-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) can be used to examine intracortical inhibition in primary motor cortex (M1), termed short-interval intracortical inhibition (SICI). To our knowledge, SICI has only been demonstrated in contralateral motor evoked potentials (MEPs). Ipsilateral MEPs (iMEPs) are assumed to reflect excitability of an uncrossed oligosynaptic pathway, and can sometimes be evoked in proximal upper-limb muscles using high-intensity TMS. We examined whether iMEPs in the biceps brachii (BB) would be suppressed by subthreshold conditioning, therefore demonstrating SICI of iMEPs. TMS was delivered to the dominant M1 to evoke conditioned (C) and nonconditioned (NC) iMEPs in the nondominant BB of healthy participants during weak bilateral elbow flexion. The conditioning stimulus intensities tested were 85%, 100%, and 115% of active motor threshold (AMT), at 2 ms and 4 ms interstimulus intervals (ISI). The iMEP ratio (C/NC) was calculated for each condition to assess the amount of inhibition. Inhibition of iMEPs was present at 2 ms ISI with 100% and 115% AMT (both P < 0.03), mediated by a reduction in persistence and size (all P < 0.05). To our knowledge, this is the first demonstration of SICI of iMEPs. This technique may be useful as a tool to better understand the role of ipsilateral M1 during functional motor tasks.

scholarly journals Long-term motor deficit in brain tumour surgery with preserved intra-operative motor-evoked potentials

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Davide Giampiccolo ◽  
Cristiano Parisi ◽  
Pietro Meneghelli ◽  
Vincenzo Tramontano ◽  
Federica Basaldella ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Evoked Potentials ◽  
Brain Tumour ◽  
Evoked Potential ◽  
Corticospinal Tract ◽  
Motor Evoked Potentials ◽  
Motor Evoked Potential ◽  
Motor Deficit ◽  
Motor Deficits ◽  
Brain Tumour Surgery

Abstract Muscle motor-evoked potentials are commonly monitored during brain tumour surgery in motor areas, as these are assumed to reflect the integrity of descending motor pathways, including the corticospinal tract. However, while the loss of muscle motor-evoked potentials at the end of surgery is associated with long-term motor deficits (muscle motor-evoked potential-related deficits), there is increasing evidence that motor deficit can occur despite no change in muscle motor-evoked potentials (muscle motor-evoked potential-unrelated deficits), particularly after surgery of non-primary regions involved in motor control. In this study, we aimed to investigate the incidence of muscle motor-evoked potential-unrelated deficits and to identify the associated brain regions. We retrospectively reviewed 125 consecutive patients who underwent surgery for peri-Rolandic lesions using intra-operative neurophysiological monitoring. Intraoperative changes in muscle motor-evoked potentials were correlated with motor outcome, assessed by the Medical Research Council scale. We performed voxel–lesion–symptom mapping to identify which resected regions were associated with short- and long-term muscle motor-evoked potential-associated motor deficits. Muscle motor-evoked potentials reductions significantly predicted long-term motor deficits. However, in more than half of the patients who experienced long-term deficits (12/22 patients), no muscle motor-evoked potential reduction was reported during surgery. Lesion analysis showed that muscle motor-evoked potential-related long-term motor deficits were associated with direct or ischaemic damage to the corticospinal tract, whereas muscle motor-evoked potential-unrelated deficits occurred when supplementary motor areas were resected in conjunction with dorsal premotor regions and the anterior cingulate. Our results indicate that long-term motor deficits unrelated to the corticospinal tract can occur more often than currently reported. As these deficits cannot be predicted by muscle motor-evoked potentials, a combination of awake and/or novel asleep techniques other than muscle motor-evoked potentials monitoring should be implemented.

scholarly journals Cortical silent period reflects individual differences in action stopping performance

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mario Paci ◽  
Giulio Di Cosmo ◽  
Mauro Gianni Perrucci ◽  
Francesca Ferri ◽  
Marcello Costantini
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Response Inhibition ◽  
Primary Motor Cortex ◽  
Silent Period ◽  
Intracortical Inhibition ◽  
Stop Signal ◽  
Stop Signal Task ◽  
Behavioral Differences ◽  
Cortical Silent Period ◽  
Stop Signal Reaction Time

AbstractInhibitory control is the ability to suppress inappropriate movements and unwanted actions, allowing to regulate impulses and responses. This ability can be measured via the Stop Signal Task, which provides a temporal index of response inhibition, namely the stop signal reaction time (SSRT). At the neural level, Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) allows to investigate motor inhibition within the primary motor cortex (M1), such as the cortical silent period (CSP) which is an index of GABAB-mediated intracortical inhibition within M1. Although there is strong evidence that intracortical inhibition varies during action stopping, it is still not clear whether differences in the neurophysiological markers of intracortical inhibition contribute to behavioral differences in actual inhibitory capacities. Hence, here we explored the relationship between intracortical inhibition within M1 and behavioral response inhibition. GABABergic-mediated inhibition in M1 was determined by the duration of CSP, while behavioral inhibition was assessed by the SSRT. We found a significant positive correlation between CSP’s duration and SSRT, namely that individuals with greater levels of GABABergic-mediated inhibition seem to perform overall worse in inhibiting behavioral responses. These results support the assumption that individual differences in intracortical inhibition are mirrored by individual differences in action stopping abilities.

Intracortical Inhibition During Volitional Inhibition of Prepared Action

2006 ◽  
Vol 95 (6) ◽  
pp. 3371-3383 ◽  
Author(s):  
James P. Coxon ◽  
Cathy M. Stinear ◽  
Winston D. Byblow
Keyword(s):  
Primary Motor Cortex ◽  
Motor Evoked Potentials ◽  
Short Interval ◽  
Intracortical Inhibition ◽  
Corticomotor Excitability ◽  
Hand Muscles ◽  
Cortical Level ◽  
A Site ◽  
Intrinsic Hand Muscles ◽  
Inhibitory Networks

Volitional inhibition is the voluntary prevention of a prepared movement. Here we ask whether primary motor cortex (M1) is a site of convergence of cortical activity associated with movement preparation and volitional inhibition. Volitional inhibition was studied by presenting a stop signal before execution of an anticipated response that requires a key lift to intercept a revolving dial. Motor evoked potentials (MEPs) were elicited in intrinsic hand muscles by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to assess corticomotor excitability and short interval intracortical inhibition (sICI) during task performance. The closer the stop cue was presented to the anticipated response, the harder it was for subjects to inhibit their response. Corticomotor pathway excitability was temporally modulated during volitional inhibition. Using subthreshold TMS, corticomotor excitability was reduced for Stop trials relative to Go trials from 140 ms after the cue. sICI was significantly greater for Stop trials compared with Go trials at a time that preceded the onset of muscle activity associated with the anticipated response. These results provide evidence that volitional inhibition is exerted at a cortical level and that inhibitory networks within M1 contribute to volitional inhibition of prepared action.

scholarly journals Phase and power modulations on the amplitude of TMS-induced motor evoked potentials

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (9) ◽  
pp. e0255815
Author(s):  
Lukas Schilberg ◽  
Sanne Ten Oever ◽  
Teresa Schuhmann ◽  
Alexander T. Sack
Keyword(s):  
Evoked Potentials ◽  
Diagnostic Tool ◽  
Primary Motor Cortex ◽  
Motor Evoked Potentials ◽  
Single Pulse ◽  
Beta Phase ◽  
Alpha Phase ◽  
Individual Variability ◽  
Oscillatory Activity ◽  
Alpha Power

The evaluation of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS)-induced motor evoked potentials (MEPs) promises valuable information about fundamental brain related mechanisms and may serve as a diagnostic tool for clinical monitoring of therapeutic progress or surgery procedures. However, reports about spontaneous fluctuations of MEP amplitudes causing high intra-individual variability have led to increased concerns about the reliability of this measure. One possible cause for high variability of MEPs could be neuronal oscillatory activity, which reflects fluctuations of membrane potentials that systematically increase and decrease the excitability of neuronal networks. Here, we investigate the dependence of MEP amplitude on oscillation power and phase by combining the application of single pulse TMS over the primary motor cortex with concurrent recordings of electromyography and electroencephalography. Our results show that MEP amplitude is correlated to alpha phase, alpha power as well as beta phase. These findings may help explain corticospinal excitability fluctuations by highlighting the modulatory effect of alpha and beta phase on MEPs. In the future, controlling for such a causal relationship may allow for the development of new protocols, improve this method as a (diagnostic) tool and increase the specificity and efficacy of general TMS applications.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document