Response preparation changes following practice of an asymmetrical bimanual movement

An intense electrical stimulus can elicit a StartReact effect but with decreased incidence and later onset of the startle reflex

Planned actions can be triggered involuntarily by a startling acoustic stimulus (SAS), resulting in very short reaction times (RT). This phenomenon, known as the StartReact effect, is thought to result from the startle-related activation of reticular structures. However, other sensory modalities also can elicit a reflexive startle response. Here, we assessed the effectiveness of an intense startling electric stimulus (SES) in eliciting the StartReact effect as compared to a SAS. We tested SES intensities at 15 and 25 times the perceptual threshold of each participant, as well as SAS intensities of 114 dB and 120 dB. The electrical stimulation electrodes were placed over short head of the biceps brachii on the arm not involved in the task. Intense electric and acoustic stimuli were presented on 20% of the trials in a simple RT paradigm requiring a targeted ballistic wrist extension movement. The proportion of trials showing short latency (≤ 120 ms) startle reflex-related activation in sternocleidomastoid was significantly lower on intense electrical stimulus trials compared to intense acoustic trials, and the startle response onset occurred significantly later on SES trials compared to SAS. However, when a startle reflex was observed, RTs related to the prepared movement were facilitated to a similar extent for both SES and SAS conditions, suggesting that the accelerated response latency associated with the StartReact effect is independent of stimulus type.

Experts, but not novices, exhibit StartReact indicating experts use the reticulospinal system more than novices

Motor skill acquisition utilizes a wide array of neural structures; however, few articles evaluate how the relative contributions of these structures shift over the course of learning. Recent evidence from rodents and songbirds suggests there is a transfer from cortical to subcortical structures following intense, repetitive training. Evidence from humans indicate that the reticulospinal system is modulated over the course of skill acquisition and may be a subcortical facilitator of learning. The objective of this study was to evaluate how reticulospinal contributions are modulated by task expertise. Reticulospinal contributions were assessed using StartReact (SR). We hypothesized that expert typists would show SR during an individuated, keystroke task but SR would be absent in novices. Expert (75.2 ± 9.8 WPM) and novice typists (41.6 ± 8.2 WPM) were evaluated during an individuated, keystroke movements. In experts, SR was present but was absent in novices. Together, these results suggest that experts use reticulospinal contributions more for movement than novices indicating that the reticular formation becomes increasingly important for movement execution in highly trained, skilled tasks even those that require individuated movement of the fingers.

Timing of Gun Fire Influences Sprinters' Multiple Joint Reaction Times of Whole Body in Block Start

Experienced sprinters are specifically adapted to pre-planning an advanced motor program. Herein, sprinters are able to immediately accelerate their center of mass forward with a whole-body coordinated motion, following a steady state crouched position. We examined the effect of variable timing of reaction signals on multiple joint reaction times (RT) and whole-body RT for specialist sprinters. Twenty well-experienced male sprinters performed five start-dashes from a block start under five variable foreperiod (FP) length conditions (1.465, 1.622, 1.780, 1.938, and 2.096 s), with trials randomly timed between a warning and an imperative tone. Participants’ sprinting motion and ground reaction forces of their four limbs during the block start were measured simultaneously. Whole-body RT was significantly shorter when FP length was longer; the values of whole-body RT were 117 ± 5 ms, 129 ± 5 ms, 125 ± 4 ms, 133 ± 6 ms, and 156 ± 8 ms in the 2.096, 1.938, 1.780, 1.622, and 1.465-s FP-length conditions, respectively. A repeated-measures analysis of variance found a significant joint-by-FP length interaction in joint-moment RT. These findings suggest that FP length affects coordinated motion in four limbs and whole-body RT. This information will be able to lead to new methods for start signals in sprint running events and advance our understanding of the association between FP length and dynamic coordinated motion.

Degraded expression of learned feedforward control in movements released by startle

Recent work has shown that preplanned motor programs can be rapidly released via fast conducting pathways using a startling acoustic stimulus. Our question was whether the startle-elicited response might also release a recently learned internal model, which draws on experience to predict and compensate for expected perturbations in a feedforward manner. Our initial investigation using adaptation to robotically produced forces showed some evidence of this, but the results were potentially confounded by co-contraction caused by startle. In this study, we eliminated this confound by asking subjects to make reaching movements in the presence of a visual distortion. Results show that a startle stimulus (1) decreased performance of the recently learned task and (2) reduced after-effect magnitude. Since the recall of learned control was reduced, but not eliminated during startle trials, we suggest that multiple neural centers (cortical and subcortical) are involved in such learning and adaptation. These findings have implications for motor training in areas such as piloting, teleoperation, sports, and rehabilitation.

Aiming accuracy in preferred and non-preferred limbs: implications for programing models of motor control

Most models of motor programing contend that one can perform learned actions with different muscle groups or limbs demonstrating the concept of motor equivalence. The goal of this review is to determine the generality of this concept within the context of aiming movements performed by both preferred and non-preferred limbs. Theoretical approaches to motor programing are described, followed by a comparison of a variety of kinematic measures taken from preferred and non-preferred limbs from simple and more complex aiming tasks. In general, the support for motor equivalency is strong for one- and two-dimensional aiming tasks and for simultaneous bimanual movements, but mixed for unconstrained throwing tasks and tasks that require feedback-based corrections.

Transcranial direct current stimulation over the supplementary motor area modulates the preparatory activation level in the human motor system

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive stimulation method that can induce transient polarity-specific neuroplastic changes in cortical excitability lasting up to 1h post-stimulation. While excitability changes with stimulation over the primary motor cortex have been well documented, the functional effects of stimulation over premotor regions are less well understood. In the present experiment, we tested how cathodal and anodal tDCS applied over the region of the supplementary motor area (SMA) affected preparation and initiation of a voluntary movement. Participants performed a simple reaction time (RT) task requiring a targeted wrist-extension in response to a go-signal. In 20% of RT trials a startling acoustic stimulus (SAS) was presented 500 ms prior to the "go" signal in order to probe the state of motor preparation. Following the application of cathodal, anodal, or sham tDCS (separate days) over SMA for 10 min, participants performed blocks of RT trials at 10 min intervals. While sham stimulation did not affect RT or incidence of early release by the SAS, cathodal tDCS led to a significant slowing of RT that peaked 10 min after the end of stimulation and was associated with a marked decrease in the incidence of movement release by the SAS. In contrast, anodal tDCS resulted in faster RTs, but the incidence of release was unchanged. These results are consistent with the SMA playing a role in the pre-planning of movements and that modulating its activity with tDCS can lead to polarity-specific changes in motor behavior.

Cortical involvement in the StartReact effect

The rapid release of prepared movements by a loud acoustic stimulus capable of eliciting a startle response has been termed the StartReact effect (Valls-Solé et al., 1999), and premotor reaction times (PMTs) of <70 ms are often observed. Two explanations have been given for these short latency responses. The subcortical storage and triggering hypothesis suggests movements that can be prepared in advance of a "go" signal are stored and triggered from subcortical areas by a startling acoustic stimulus (SAS) without cortical involvement. Alternatively, it has been hypothesized that the SAS can trigger movements from cortical areas through a faster pathway ascending from subcortical structures. Two experiments were designed to examine the possible role of the primary motor cortex in the StartReact effect. In Experiment 1, we used suprathreshold transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) during the reaction time (RT) interval to induce a cortical silent period in the contralateral primary motor cortex (M1). Thirteen participants performed 20° wrist extension movements as fast as possible in response to either a control stimulus (82 dB) or SAS (124 dB). PMTs for startle trials were faster than for control trials, while TMS significantly delayed movement onset compared to No TMS or Sham TMS conditions. In Experiment 2, we examined the StartReact effect in a highly cortically represented action involving speech of a consonant-vowel (CV) syllable. Similar to previous work examining limb movements, a robust StartReact effect was found. Collectively, these experiments provide evidence for cortical (M1) involvement in the StartReact effect.

Preparation for voluntary movement in healthy and clinical populations: evidence from startle

In this review we provide a summary of the observations made regarding advance preparation of the motor system when presenting a startling acoustic stimulus (SAS) during various movement tasks. The predominant finding from these studies is that if the participant is prepared to make a particular movement a SAS can act to directly and quickly trigger the prepared action. A similar effect has recently been shown in patients with Parkinson's disease. This "StartReact" effect has been shown to be a robust indicator of advance motor programming as it can involuntarily release whatever movement has been prepared. We review the historical origins of the StartReact effect and the experimental results detailing circumstances where advance preparation occurs, when it occurs, and how these processes change with practice for both healthy and clinical populations. Data from some of these startle experiments has called into question some of the previously held hypotheses and assumptions with respect to the nature of response preparation and initiation, and how the SAS results in early response expression. As such, a secondary focus is to review previous hypotheses and introduce an updated model of how the SAS may interact with response preparation and initiation channels from a neurophysiological perspective.

Motor preparation of spatially and temporally defined movements: evidence from startle

Previous research has shown that the preparation of a spatially targeted movement performed at maximal speed is different from that of a temporally constrained movement ( Gottlieb et al. 1989b ). In the current study, we directly examined preparation differences in temporally vs. spatially defined movements through the use of a startling stimulus and manipulation of the task goals. Participants performed arm extension movements to one of three spatial targets (20°, 40°, 60°) and an arm extension movement of 20° at three movement speeds (slow, moderate, fast). All movements were performed in a blocked, simple reaction time paradigm, with trials involving a startling stimulus (124 dB) interspersed randomly with control trials. As predicted, spatial movements were modulated by agonist duration and timed movements were modulated by agonist rise time. The startling stimulus triggered all movements at short latencies with a compression of the kinematic and electromyogram (EMG) profile such that they were performed faster than control trials. However, temporally constrained movements showed a differential effect of movement compression on startle trials such that the slowest movement showed the greatest temporal compression. The startling stimulus also decreased the relative timing between EMG bursts more for the 20° movement when it was defined by a temporal rather than spatial goal, which we attributed to the disruption of an internal timekeeper for the timed movements. These results confirm that temporally defined movements were prepared in a different manner from spatially defined movements and provide new information pertaining to these preparation differences.

Reaction time effects due to imperative stimulus modality are absent when a startle elicits a pre-programmed action

When an acoustic stimulus that is sufficiently intense to elicit a startle response is delivered in conjunction with the "go" signal in a simple reaction time (RT) task, RT is greatly reduced. It has been suggested that this effect is due to the startle interacting with voluntary response channels to directly trigger the pre-programmed action. Alternatively, it may be that the startling stimulus simply increases activation along the sensory and motor pathways allowing for faster stimulus-response processing. In the present study a startling acoustic stimulus (SAS) was presented in addition to a visual or an auditory imperative stimulus (IS) in a simple RT task. Results showed that the pre-programmed response was initiated much faster when participants were startled. However, while differences in RT due to IS modality were observed in control trials, this difference was absent for startle trials. This result indicates that the SAS does not simply speed processing along the normal stimulus-response channels, but acts to release the pre-planned movement via a separate, faster neural pathway.

Considerations for the use of a startling acoustic stimulus in studies of motor preparation in humans

Recent studies have used a loud (> 120 dB) startle-eliciting acoustic stimulus as a probe to investigate early motor response preparation in humans. The use of a startle in these studies has provided insight into not only the neurophysiological substrates underlying motor preparation, but also into the behavioural response strategies associated with particular stimulus-response sets. However, as the use of startle as a probe for preparation is a relatively new technique, a standard protocol within the context of movement paradigms does not yet exist. Here we review the recent literature using startle as a probe during the preparation phase of movement tasks, with an emphasis on how the experimental parameters affect the results obtained. Additionally, an overview of the literature surrounding the startle stimulus parameters is provided, and factors affecting the startle response are considered. In particular, we provide a review of the factors that should be taken into consideration when using a startling stimulus in human research.

Motor preparation is modulated by the resolution of the response timing information

In the present experiment, the temporal predictability of response time was systematically manipulated to examine its effect on the time course of motor pre-programming and release of the intended movement by an acoustic startle stimulus. Participants performed a ballistic right wrist extension task in four different temporal conditions: 1) a variable foreperiod simple RT task, 2) a fixed foreperiod simple RT task, 3) a low resolution countdown anticipation-timing task, and 4) a high resolution anticipation-timing task. For each task, a startling acoustic stimulus (124dB) was presented at several intervals prior to the "go" signal ("go" -150ms, -500ms, and -1500ms). Results from the startle trials showed that the time course of movement pre-programming was affected by the temporal uncertainty of the imperative "go" cue. These findings demonstrate that the resolution of the timing information regarding the response cue has a marked effect on the timing of movement preparation such that under conditions of low temporal resolution, participants plan the movement well in advance in accordance with the anticipated probability of onset of the cue, whereas movement preparation is delayed until less than 500ms prior to response time when continuous temporal information is provided.