Influence of head orientation on visually and memory-guided arm movements

Neck Muscle Vibration Alters Cerebellar Processing Associated with Motor Skill Acquisition of a Proprioceptive-Based Task

Experimentally induced neck fatigue and neck pain have been shown to impact cortico-cerebellar processing and sensorimotor integration, assessed using a motor learning paradigm. Vibration specifically impacts muscle spindle feedback, yet it is unknown whether transient alterations in neck sensory input from vibration impact these neural processing changes following the acquisition of a proprioceptive-based task. Twenty-five right-handed participants had electrical stimulation over the right median nerve to elicit short- and middle-latency somatosensory evoked potentials (SEPs) pre- and post-acquisition of a force matching tracking task. Following the pre-acquisition phase, controls (CONT, n = 13, 6 F) received 10 min of rest and the vibration group (VIB, n = 12, 6 F) received 10 min of 60 Hz vibration on the right sternocleidomastoid and left cervical extensors. Task performance was measured 24 h later to assess retention. Significant time by group interactions occurred for the N18 SEP peak, 21.77% decrease in VIB compared to 58.74% increase in CONT (F(1,23) = 6.475, p = 0.018, np2 = 0.220), and the N24 SEP peak, 16.31% increase in VIB compared to 14.05% decrease in CONT (F(1,23) = 5.787, p = 0.025, np2 = 0.201). Both groups demonstrated improvements in motor performance post-acquisition (F(1,23) = 52.812, p < 0.001, np2 = 0.697) and at retention (F(1,23) = 35.546, p < 0.001, np2 = 0.607). Group-dependent changes in the SEP peaks associated with cerebellar input (N18) and cerebellar processing (N24) suggests that an altered proprioceptive input from neck vibration impacts cerebellar pathways.

Neck Muscle Vibration Alters Upper Limb Proprioception as Demonstrated by Changes in Accuracy and Precision during an Elbow Repositioning Task

Upper limb control depends on accurate internal models of limb position relative to the head and neck, accurate sensory inputs, and accurate cortical processing. Transient alterations in neck afferent feedback induced by muscle vibration may impact upper limb proprioception. This research aimed to determine the effects of neck muscle vibration on upper limb proprioception using a novel elbow repositioning task (ERT). 26 right-handed participants aged 22.21 ± 2.64 performed the ERT consisting of three target angles between 80−90° (T1), 90−100° (T2) and 100−110° (T3). Controls (CONT) (n = 13, 6F) received 10 min of rest and the vibration group (VIB) (n = 13, 6F) received 10 min of 60 Hz vibration over the right sternocleidomastoid and left cervical extensor muscles. Task performance was reassessed following experimental manipulation. Significant time by group interactions occurred for T1: (F1,24 = 25.330, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.513) where CONT improved by 26.08% and VIB worsened by 134.27%, T2: (F1,24 = 16.157, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.402) where CONT improved by 20.39% and VIB worsened by 109.54%, and T3: (F1,24 = 21.923, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.447) where CONT improved by 37.11% and VIB worsened by 54.39%. Improvements in repositioning accuracy indicates improved proprioceptive ability with practice in controls. Decreased accuracy following vibration suggests that vibration altered proprioceptive inputs used to construct body schema, leading to inaccurate joint position sense and the observed changes in elbow repositioning accuracy.

Does My Neck Make Me Clumsy? A Systematic Review of Clinical and Neurophysiological Studies in Humans

Introduction: Clumsiness has been described as a symptom associated with neck pain and injury. However, the actuality of this symptom in clinical practice is unclear. The aim of this investigation was to collect definitions and frequency of reports of clumsiness in clinical studies of neck pain/injury, identify objective measures of clumsiness and investigate the association between the neck and objective measures of clumsiness.

Methods: Six electronic databases were systematically searched, records identified and assessed including a risk of bias. Heterogeneity in designs of studies prevented pooling of data, so qualitative analysis was undertaken.

Results: Eighteen studies were retrieved and assessed; the overall quality of evidence was moderate to high. Eight were prospective cross-sectional studies comparing upper limb sensorimotor task performance and ten were case series involving a healthy cohort only. Clumsiness was defined as a deficit in coordination or impairment of upper limb kinesthesia. All but one of 18 studies found a deterioration in performing upper limb kinesthetic tasks including a healthy cohort where participants were exposed to a natural neck intervention that required the neck to function toward extreme limits.

Conclusion: Alterations in neck sensory input occurring as a result of requiring the neck to operate near the end of its functional range in healthy people and in patients with neck pain/injury are associated with reductions in acuity of upper limb kinesthetic sense and deterioration in sensorimotor performance. Understanding the association between the neck and decreased accuracy of upper limb kinesthetic tasks provide pathways for treatment and rehabilitation strategies in managing clumsiness.

Subclinical recurrent neck pain and its treatment impacts motor training-induced plasticity of the cerebellum and motor cortex

The cerebellum processes pain inputs and is important for motor learning. Yet, how the cerebellum interacts with the motor cortex in individuals with recurrent pain is not clear. Functional connectivity between the cerebellum and motor cortex can be measured by a twin coil transcranial magnetic stimulation technique in which stimulation is applied to the cerebellum prior to stimulation over the motor cortex, which inhibits motor evoked potentials (MEPs) produced by motor cortex stimulation alone, called cerebellar inhibition (CBI). Healthy individuals without pain have been shown to demonstrate reduced CBI following motor acquisition. We hypothesized that CBI would not reduce to the same extent in those with mild-recurrent neck pain following the same motor acquisition task. We further hypothesized that a common treatment for neck pain (spinal manipulation) would restore reduced CBI following motor acquisition. Motor acquisition involved typing an eight-letter sequence of the letters Z,P,D,F with the right index finger. Twenty-seven neck pain participants received spinal manipulation (14 participants, 18–27 years) or sham control (13 participants, 19–24 years). Twelve healthy controls (20–27 years) also participated. Participants had CBI measured; they completed manipulation or sham control followed by motor acquisition; and then had CBI re-measured. Following motor acquisition, neck pain sham controls remained inhibited (58 ± 33% of test MEP) vs. healthy controls who disinhibited (98 ± 49% of test MEP, P<0.001), while the spinal manipulation group facilitated (146 ± 95% of test MEP, P<0.001). Greater inhibition in neck pain sham vs. healthy control groups suggests that neck pain may change cerebellar-motor cortex interaction. The change to facilitation suggests that spinal manipulation may reverse inhibitory effects of neck pain.

Influence of Subclinical Neck Pain on the Ability to Perform a Mental Rotation Task: A 4-Week Longitudinal Study With a Healthy Control Group Comparison

OBJECTIVE

Mental rotation of objects and the frame of reference of those objects are critical for executing correct and skillful movements and are important for object recognition, spatial navigation, and movement planning. The purpose of this longitudinal study was to compare the mental rotation ability of those with subclinical neck pain (SCNP) to healthy controls at baseline and after 4 weeks.

METHODS

Twenty-six volunteers (13 SCNP and 12 healthy controls) were recruited from a university student population. Subclinical neck pain participants had scores of mild to moderate on the Chronic Pain Grade Scale, and controls had minimal or no pain. For the mental rotation task, participants were presented with an object (letter "R") on a computer screen presented randomly in either normal or backwards parity at various orientations (0°, 45°, 90°, 135°, 180°, 225°, 270°, and 315°). Participants indicated the object's parity by pressing "N" for normal or "B" for backwards. Each orientation for normal and backward parities was presented 5 times, and the average response time for all letter presentations was calculated for each participant, at baseline and 4 weeks later.

RESULTS

Both groups had overall improved response times from baseline to 4 weeks. Healthy participants had significantly improved response times compared to SCNP, both at baseline (P < .05) and 4 weeks (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Healthy participants performed better than the SCNP group at both time points. Subclinical neck pain may impair the ability to perform a complex mental rotation task involving cerebellar connections, possibly due to altered body schema.

Bimanual coordination with three hands: is the mirror hand of any help?

The mirror paradigm has been used extensively both as a research tool for studying kinesthesia in healthy individuals and as a therapeutic tool for improving recovery and/or alleviating symptoms in patients. The present study of healthy participants assessed the contribution of the mirror paradigm to motor control in a bimanual coordination task performed under sensorimotor disturbance conditions. In Experiment 1, the participants were required to produce symmetrical circles with both hands/arms at the same time. In Experiment 2, the task consisted of synchronous extension-flexion movements of both arms in the sagittal plane. These tasks were performed under four different visual conditions: (i) mirror vision (i.e. with the non-dominant arm reflected in a mirror--the third hand--and the dominant arm hidden), (ii) full vision (i.e. both arms visible), (iii) with only the non-dominant arm visible and (iv) with the eyes closed. In Experiments 1 and 2, sensorimotor disturbance was applied to the participant's dominant arm by co-vibrating antagonistic muscles (the biceps and the triceps). In the complex circle drawing task, bimanual performance was better in the mirror condition than when participants saw their non-dominant arm only. However, motor performance in the mirror vision condition was little better than in the eyes closed condition, regardless of whether or not sensorimotor disturbance was applied. In Experiment 2, there were no differences between the "eyes closed" and "mirror vision" conditions. Although mirror reflection of one arm has been shown to induce consistent, vivid, perceptual illusions (kinesthetic illusion), our results suggest that it is less effective in modulating motor behavior.

Keep your head on straight: facilitating sensori-motor transformations for eye-hand coordination

In many day-to-day situations humans manifest a marked tendency to hold the head vertical while performing sensori-motor actions. For instance, when performing coordinated whole-body motor tasks, such as skiing, gymnastics or simply walking, and even when driving a car, human subjects will strive to keep the head aligned with the gravito-inertial vector. Until now, this phenomenon has been thought of as a means to limit variations of sensory signals emanating from the eyes and inner ears. Recent theories suggest that for the task of aligning the hand to a target, the CNS compares target and hand concurrently in both visual and kinesthetic domains, rather than combining sensory data into a single, multimodal reference frame. This implies that when sensory information is lacking in one modality, it must be 'reconstructed' based on information from the other. Here we asked subjects to reach to a visual target with the unseen hand. In this situation, the CNS might reconstruct the orientation of the target in kinesthetic space or reconstruct the orientation of the hand in visual space, or both. By having subjects tilt the head during target acquisition or during movement execution, we show a greater propensity to perform the sensory reconstruction that can be achieved when the head is held upright. These results suggest that the reason humans tend to keep their head upright may also have to do with how the brain manipulates and stores spatial information between reference frames and between sensory modalities, rather than only being tied to the specific problem of stabilizing visual and vestibular inputs.