Default motor preparation under conditions of response uncertainty

Acoustic stimulation increases implicit adaptation in sensorimotor adaptation

Sensorimotor adaptation is an important part of our ability to perform novel motor tasks (i.e., learning of motor skills). Efforts to improve adaptation in healthy and clinical patients using non-invasive brain stimulation methods have been hindered by inter-individual and intra-individual variability in brain susceptibility to stimulation. Here, we explore unpredictable loud acoustic stimulation as an alternative method of modulating brain excitability to improve sensorimotor adaptation. In two experiments, participants moved a cursor towards targets, and adapted to a 30º rotation of cursor feedback, either with or without unpredictable acoustic stimulation. Acoustic stimulation improved initial adaptation to sensory prediction errors in Study 1, and improved overnight retention of adaptation in Study 2. Unpredictable loud acoustic stimulation might thus be a potent method of modulating sensorimotor adaptation in healthy adults.

Investigating the effect of anticipating a startling acoustic stimulus on preparatory inhibition

OBJECTIVES

Motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) to transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) show a profound suppression when elicited during the instructed-delay of reaction time (RT) tasks. One predominant hypothesis is that this phenomenon, called "preparatory inhibition", reflects the operation of processes that suppress motor activity to withhold prepared (but delayed) responses, a form of impulse control. In addition, a startling acoustic stimulus (SAS) - a loud and narrow sound - can trigger the release of prepared responses in RT tasks. We predicted that, if such premature release is clearly forbidden, then anticipating a SAS during delay periods may be associated with increased preparatory inhibition for greater impulse control.

METHODS

Subjects performed a behavioural (n=16) and TMS (n=11) experiment. Both used a choice RT task that required subjects to choose a response based on a preparatory cue but to only release it after an imperative signal. SAS and TMS pulses were elicited at the end of the delay period and subjects were asked to do their best to only release their response after the imperative signal, even in the presence of SAS. SAS could be either rare or frequent, in separate blocks.

RESULTS

Consistent with the literature, SAS shortened RTs, especially when they occurred frequently. Moreover, MEPs were suppressed when subjects delayed prepared responses but this preparatory inhibition did not depend on whether SAS were frequent or rare.

DISCUSSION

The stronger RT shortening with frequent rather than rare SAS may be due to increased attention and/or reduced reactive inhibition to SAS, leaving preparatory inhibition unaffected.

Evidence for distinct steps in response preparation from a delayed response paradigm

Task parameters still affect reaction times even when all necessary information for executing an action is presented prior to a Go signal to execute the action. Hypotheses in terms of short-term memory capacity, residual activation, and a separate motor-programming stage have been suggested to explain what can and cannot be prepared prior to a delayed Go signal. To test these hypotheses, we used a delayed response task, in which participants were to initiate a movement at onset of an imperative Go signal following the target stimulus. Across Experiments 1-3 we varied task properties including stimulus type, information uncertainty and response complexity, respectively, while controlling other factors. We also varied the time available to process the response by randomly varying the interval between onset of the target and the Go signal (i.e., the stimulus onset asynchrony, or SOA). If the preparation process is completed before initiation, the examined factor should display a strong interaction with SOA, with its effect disappearing at long SOAs. Our results showed strong, weaker, and no interaction patterns for the three factors, respectively, favoring the separate stage hypothesis, according to which response preparation is separated into steps to arrange kinematic specifications into muscle-controllable terms.

Response preparation and execution during intentional bimanual pattern switching

During continuous bimanual coordination, in-phase (IP; 0° relative phase) and anti-phase (AP; 180° relative phase) patterns can be stably performed without practice. Paradigms in which participants are required to intentionally switch between these coordination patterns have been used to investigate the interaction between the performer's intentions and intrinsic dynamics of the body's preferred patterns. The current study examined the processes associated with switching preparation and execution through the use of a startling acoustic stimulus (SAS) as the switch stimulus. A SAS is known to involuntarily trigger preprogrammed responses at a shortened latency and, thus, can be used to probe advance preparation. Participants performed cyclical IP and AP bimanual elbow extension-flexion movements in which they were required to switch patterns in response to an auditory switch cue, which was either nonstartling (80 dB) or a SAS (120 dB). Results indicated that reaction time to the switch stimulus (i.e., switch onset) was significantly reduced on startle trials, indicative of advance preparation of the switch response. Similarly, switching time was reduced on startle trials, which was attributed to increased neural activation caused by the SAS. Switching time was also shorter for AP to IP trials, but only when the switching stimulus occurred at either the midpoint or reversal locations within the movement cycle, suggesting that the switch location may affect the intrinsic dynamics of the system.NEW & NOTEWORTHY The current study provides novel information regarding preparation and execution of intentional switching between in-phase and anti-phase bimanual coordination patterns. Using a startling acoustic stimulus, we provide strong evidence that the switching response is prepared before the switch stimulus, and switch execution is accelerated by the startling stimulus. In addition, the time required to switch between patterns and relative limb contribution is dependent upon where in the movement cycle the switch stimulus occurred.

Unified nature of bimanual movements revealed by separating the preparation of each arm

Movement preparation of bimanual asymmetric movements is longer than bimanual symmetric movements in choice reaction time conditions, even when movements are cued directly by illuminating the targets (Blinch et al. in Exp Brain Res 232(3):947-955, 2014). This bimanual asymmetric cost may be caused by increased processing demands on response programming, but this requires further investigation. The present experiment tested the demands on response programming for bimanual movements by temporally separating the preparation of each arm. This was achieved by precuing the target of one arm before the imperative stimulus. We asked: What was prepared in advance when one arm was precued? The answer to this question would suggest which process causes the bimanual asymmetric cost. Advance movement preparation was examined by comparing reaction times with and without a precue for the left target and by occasionally replacing the imperative stimulus with a loud, startling tone (120 dB). A startle tone releases whatever movement is prepared in advance with a much shorter reaction time than control trials (Carlsen et al. in Clin Neurophysiol 123(1):21-33, 2012). Participants made bimanual symmetric and asymmetric reaching movements in simple and 2-choice reaction time conditions and a condition with a precue for the left target. We found a bimanual asymmetric cost in 2-choice conditions, and the asymmetric cost was significantly smaller when the left target was precued. These results, and the results from startle trials, suggest (1) that the precued movement was not fully programmed but partially programmed before the imperative stimulus and (2) that the asymmetric cost was caused by increased processing demands on response programming. Overall, the results support the notion that bimanual movements are not the sum of two unimanual movements; instead, the two arms of a bimanual movement are unified into a functional unit. When one target is precued, this critical unification likely occurs during response programming.

Hedging your bets: intermediate movements as optimal behavior in the context of an incomplete decision

Existing theories of movement planning suggest that it takes time to select and prepare the actions required to achieve a given goal. These theories often appeal to circumstances where planning apparently goes awry. For instance, if reaction times are forced to be very low, movement trajectories are often directed between two potential targets. These intermediate movements are generally interpreted as errors of movement planning, arising either from planning being incomplete or from parallel movement plans interfering with one another. Here we present an alternative view: that intermediate movements reflect uncertainty about movement goals. We show how intermediate movements are predicted by an optimal feedback control model that incorporates an ongoing decision about movement goals. According to this view, intermediate movements reflect an exploitation of compatibility between goals. Consequently, reducing the compatibility between goals should reduce the incidence of intermediate movements. In human subjects, we varied the compatibility between potential movement goals in two distinct ways: by varying the spatial separation between targets and by introducing a virtual barrier constraining trajectories to the target and penalizing intermediate movements. In both cases we found that decreasing goal compatibility led to a decreasing incidence of intermediate movements. Our results and theory suggest a more integrated view of decision-making and movement planning in which the primary bottleneck to generating a movement is deciding upon task goals. Determining how to move to achieve a given goal is rapid and automatic.

Two critical processes need to occur before a movement can be made: identification of the goal of the movement and selection and preparation of the motor commands that will be sent to muscles to generate the movement—in other words, what movement to make, and how to make it. It has long been thought that preparing motor commands is a time-consuming process, and theories advocating this view have pointed to instances where apparently the wrong motor commands are issued if insufficient time is available to prepare them. The usual pattern of these wayward movements is that they are intermediate between two potential targets. In this article we show how such intermediate movements can alternatively be viewed as reflecting an intelligent and deliberate decision about how to move, given uncertainty about task goals. Our theory is supported by experiments that show that intermediate movements only occur in conditions where they are advantageous. The implication of our theory is that the primary bottleneck to generating a movement is deciding on exactly what to do; deciding how to do it is rapid and automatic.

Startle induces early initiation of classically conditioned postural responses

Startling acoustic stimuli (SAS) induce the early release of prepared motor responses. The current study used SAS, in conjunction with a classical conditioning paradigm, to examine advanced motor preparation of conditioned postural responses (PRs). After generalized startle responses were induced, standing posture was perturbed in 2 blocks of 15 Conditioning trials, where in each trial the onset of a nonstartling auditory cue [i.e., a conditioned stimulus (CS)] preceded a leftward support-surface translation. Upon completion of each block, a single trial was conducted. After block 1, a CS-Only trial was used to induce conditioned PRs in the absence of balance perturbations. After block 2, a post-Conditioning Startle trial that involved a CS subsequently followed by a SAS was used to examine motor preparation of conditioned PRs. PRs were quantified in terms of center of pressure displacements, ankle and hip kinematics, as well as surface electromyography of proximal and distal bilateral muscle pairs. Results indicated that repeated experience with cued balance perturbations led to PR conditioning and, more importantly, motor preparation of PRs. Conditioning was evidenced in biomechanical and electromyographic responses observed in CS-Only trials, as well as the progressive changes to evoked response parameters during repeated Conditioning trials. SAS presented in post-Conditioning Startle trials evoked early onsets of biomechanical and electromyographic responses, while preserving relative response parameters that were each distinct from generalized startle responses. These results provide important insight into both the consequences of using cues in dynamic postural control studies and the neural mechanisms governing PRs.