Voluntarily-generated unimanual preparation is associated with stopping success: evidence from LRP and lateralized mu ERD before the stop signal

Motor cortex activation during visuomotor transformations: evoked potentials during overt and imagined movements

Despite the prevalence of visuomotor transformations in our motor skills, their mechanisms remain incompletely understood, especially when imagery actions are considered such as mentally picking up a cup or pressing a button. Here, we used a stimulus-response task to directly compare the visuomotor transformation underlying overt and imagined button presses. Electroencephalographic activity was recorded while participants responded to highlights of the target button while ignoring the second, non-target button. Movement-related potentials (MRPs) and event-related desynchronization occurred for both overt movements and motor imagery (MI), with responses present even for non-target stimuli. Consistent with the activity accumulation model where visual stimuli are evaluated and transformed into the eventual motor response, the timing of MRPs matched the response time on individual trials. Activity-accumulation patterns were observed for MI, as well. Yet, unlike overt movements, MI-related MRPs were not lateralized, which appears to be a neural marker for the distinction between generating a mental image and transforming it into an overt action. Top-down response strategies governing this hemispheric specificity should be accounted for in future research on MI, including basic studies and medical practice.

Bridging Neuroscience and Robotics: Spiking Neural Networks in Action

Robots are becoming increasingly sophisticated in the execution of complex tasks. However, an area that requires development is the ability to act in dynamically changing environments. To advance this, developments have turned towards understanding the human brain and applying this to improve robotics. The present study used electroencephalogram (EEG) data recorded from 54 human participants whilst they performed a two-choice task. A build-up of motor activity starting around 400 ms before response onset, also known as the lateralized readiness potential (LRP), was observed. This indicates that actions are not simply binary processes but rather, response-preparation is gradual and occurs in a temporal window that can interact with the environment. In parallel, a robot arm executing a pick-and-place task was developed. The understanding from the EEG data and the robot arm were integrated into the final system, which included cell assemblies (CAs)-a simulated spiking neural network-to inform the robot to place the object left or right. Results showed that the neural data from the robot simulation were largely consistent with the human data. This neurorobotics study provides an example of how to integrate human brain recordings with simulated neural networks in order to drive a robot.

Go-activation endures following the presentation of a stop-signal: evidence from startle

It has been proposed that, in a stop-signal task (SST), independent go- and stop-processes "race" to control behavior. If the go-process wins, an overt response is produced, whereas, if the stop-process wins, the response is withheld. One prediction that follows from this proposal is that, if the activation associated with one process is enhanced, it is more likely to win the race. We looked to determine whether these initiation and inhibition processes (and thus response outcomes) could be manipulated by using a startling acoustic stimulus (SAS), which has been shown to provide additional response activation. In the present study, participants were to respond to a visual go-stimulus; however, if a subsequent stop-signal appeared, they were to inhibit the response. The stop-signal was presented at a delay corresponding to a probability of responding of 0.4 (determined from a baseline block of trials). On stop-trials, a SAS was presented either simultaneously with the go-signal or stop-signal or 100, 150, or 200 ms following the stop-signal. Results showed that presenting a SAS during stop-trials led to an increase in probability of responding when presented with or following the stop-signal. The latency of SAS responses at the stop-signal + 150 ms and stop-signal + 200 ms probe times suggests that they would have been voluntarily inhibited but instead were involuntarily initiated by the SAS. Thus results demonstrate that go-activation endures even 200 ms following a stop-signal and remains accessible well after the response has been inhibited, providing evidence against a winner-take-all race between independent go- and stop-processes.

NEW & NOTEWORTHY

In this study, a startling acoustic stimulus (SAS) was used to determine whether response outcome could be manipulated in a stop-signal task. Results revealed that presenting a SAS during stop-signal trials led to an increase in probability of responding even when presented 200 ms following the stop-signal. The latency of SAS responses indicates that go-activation remains accessible and modifiable well after the response is voluntarily inhibited, providing evidence against an irrevocable commitment to inhibition.

Startle reveals decreased response preparatory activation during a stop-signal task

In a stop-signal task participants are instructed to initiate a movement in response to a go signal, but to inhibit this movement if an infrequent stop signal is presented after the go. Reaction time (RT) in a stop-signal task is typically longer compared with that in a simple RT task, which may be attributed to a reduced readiness to initiate the response caused by the possibility of having to inhibit the response. The purpose of this experiment was to probe the preparatory activation level of the motor response during a stop-signal task using a startling acoustic stimulus (SAS), which has been shown to involuntarily trigger sufficiently prepared responses at a short latency. Participants completed two separate tasks: a simple RT task, followed by a stop-signal RT task. During both tasks, an SAS (120 dB) was pseudorandomly presented concurrently with the go signal. As expected, RT during the simple RT task was significantly shorter than during the stop-signal task. A significant reduction in RT was noted when an SAS was presented during the simple RT task; however, during the stop-signal task, an SAS resulted in either a significant speeding or a moderate delay in RT. Additionally, the subset of SAS trial responses with the shortest RT latencies produced during the stop-signal task were also delayed compared with the short-latency SAS trial responses observed during the simple RT task. Despite evidence that a response was prepared in advance of the go signal during a stop-signal task, it appears that the amount of preparatory activation was reduced compared with that achieved during a simple RT task.