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

Humans need only 200 ms to generate posture-specific muscle activation patterns for successful vertical jumps in reaction to an auditory trigger

Introduction

It is currently unknown how the central nervous system controls ballistic whole-body movements like vertical jumps. Here we set out to study the time frame of generating muscle activation patterns for maximum-effort jumps from different initial postures.

Methods

We had ten healthy male participants make a slow countermovement from an upright position and initiate a maximal vertical jump as soon as possible following an auditory trigger. The trigger was produced when hip height dropped below one of three preselected values, unknown in advance to the participant, so that the participant was uncertain about the posture from which to initiate the jump. Furthermore, we determined the ensuing bottom postures reached during jumps, and from these postures had the participants perform maximum-effort squat jumps in two conditions: whenever they felt ready, or as soon as possible following an auditory trigger. Kinematics and ground reaction forces were measured, and electromyograms were collected from gluteus maximus, biceps femoris, rectus femoris, vastus lateralis, gastrocnemius and soleus. For each muscle, we detected activation onsets, as well as reaction times defined as the delay between trigger onset and activation onset.

Results

In the jumps preceded by a slow countermovement, the posture from which to initiate the jump was unknown before trigger onset. Nevertheless, in these jumps, posture-specific muscle activation patterns were already released within 200 ms after trigger onset and reaction times were not longer and jump heights not less than in squat jumps from corresponding bottom postures.

Discussion

Our findings suggest that the generation of muscle activation patterns for jumping does not start before trigger onset and requires only about 200 ms.

Fractionation of muscle activity in rapid responses to startling cues

We demonstrate that the ability to activate muscles selectively is preserved during the very rapid reactions produced following a startling cue. This suggests that the contributions from different descending pathways are comparable between these rapid reactions and more typical voluntary movements.

Movements in response to acoustically startling cues have shorter reaction times than those following less intense sounds; this is known as the StartReact effect. The neural underpinnings for StartReact are unclear. One possibility is that startling cues preferentially invoke the reticulospinal tract to convey motor commands to spinal motoneurons. Reticulospinal outputs are highly divergent, controlling large groups of muscles in synergistic patterns. By contrast the dominant pathway in primate voluntary movement is the corticospinal tract, which can access small groups of muscles selectively. We therefore hypothesized that StartReact responses would be less fractionated than standard voluntary reactions. Electromyogram recordings were made from 15 muscles in 10 healthy human subjects as they carried out 32 varied movements with the right forelimb in response to startling and nonstartling auditory cues. Movements were chosen to elicit a wide range of muscle activations. Multidimensional muscle activity patterns were calculated at delays from 0 to 100 ms after the onset of muscle activity and subjected to principal component analysis to assess fractionation. In all cases, a similar proportion of the total variance could be explained by a reduced number of principal components for the startling and the nonstartling cue. Muscle activity patterns for a given task were very similar in response to startling and nonstartling cues. This suggests that movements produced in the StartReact paradigm rely on similar contributions from different descending pathways as those following voluntary responses to nonstartling cues.

NEW & NOTEWORTHY We demonstrate that the ability to activate muscles selectively is preserved during the very rapid reactions produced following a startling cue. This suggests that the contributions from different descending pathways are comparable between these rapid reactions and more typical voluntary movements.

Responses to startling acoustic stimuli indicate that movement-related activation is constant prior to action: a replication with an alternate interpretation

A recent study by Marinovic et al. (J. Neurophysiol., 2013, 109: 996-1008) used a loud acoustic stimulus to probe motor preparation in a simple reaction time (RT) task. Based on decreasing RT latency and increases in motor output measures as the probe stimulus approached the "go" stimulus, the authors concluded that response-related activation increased abruptly 65 ms prior to the imperative stimulus, a result in contrast to previous literature. However, this study did not measure reflexive startle activity in the sternocleidomastoid (SCM) muscle, which has been used to delineate between response triggering by a loud acoustic stimuli and effects of stimulus intensity and/or intersensory facilitation. Due to this methodological limitation, it was unclear if the data accurately represented movement-related activation changes. In order to provide a measure as to whether response triggering occurred on each trial, the current experiment replicated the study by Marinovic et al., with the collection of muscle activation in the SCM. While the replication analyses involving all trials confirmed similar results to those reported by Marinovic et al., when data were limited to those in which startle-related SCM activation occurred, the results indicated that movement-related activation is constant in the 65 ms prior to action initiation. The difference between analyses suggests that when SCM activation is not considered, results may be confounded by trials in which the probe stimulus does not trigger the prepared response. Furthermore, these results provide additional confirmation that reflexive startle activation in the SCM is a robust indicator of response triggering by a loud acoustic stimulus.

Support for the interruption and protection hypotheses of prepulse inhibition of startle: evidence from a modified Attention Network Test

The startle response may interrupt information processing (interruption hypothesis), and prepulse inhibition of startle (PPI) may protect that processing from interruption (protection hypothesis). These hypotheses were tested by measuring startle eyeblinks during an Attention Network Test (ANT), a combined flanker and cue reaction time (RT) task that measures the efficiency of multiple attentional networks. ANT trials with and without startle stimuli presented in the interval between the visual cue (prepulse) and target were compared. Results showed that the startle stimulus served as an alerting stimulus, speeding RT in the ANT. However, this reaction time speeding was most pronounced on trials with no startle response (100% PPI). This suggests that the alerting effect of the startle stimulus was attenuated by the startle response, and that PPI decreased the degree of this interference, in support of the interruption and protection hypotheses.

Evidence for a response preparation bottleneck during dual-task performance: effect of a startling acoustic stimulus on the psychological refractory period

The present study was designed to investigate the mechanism associated with dual-task interference in a psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm. We used a simple reaction time paradigm consisting of a vocal response (R1) and key-lift task (R2) with a stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) between 100ms and 1500ms. On selected trials we implemented a startling acoustic stimulus concurrent with the second stimulus to determine if we could involuntarily trigger the second response. Our results indicated that the PRP delay in the second response was present for both control and startle trials at short SOAs, suggesting the second response was not prepared in advance. These results support a response preparation bottleneck and can be explained via a neural activation model of preparation. In addition, we found that the reflexive startle activation was reduced in the dual-task condition for all SOAs, a result we attribute to prepulse inhibition associated with dual-task processing.

Not so fast: taste stimulus coding time in the rat revisited

Behavioral and electrophysiological studies suggest that rats can identify a taste stimulus with a single lick, in <200 ms. However, the conditions under which these conclusions were drawn varied widely across experiments. We designed a series of experiments to assess the effects of the number of licks of a tastant that are available, tastant concentration and prior learning experience on the speed with which a tastant can modify behavior. To accomplish this we tested exemplars of four basic taste qualities (quinine, 0.1 mM; NaCl, 100 mM; saccharin, 4 mM, or sucrose, 100 mM; citric acid, 10 mM) in rats that were conditioned to avoid quinine. Taste stimuli were available for one, two, or three licks on separate days. All tastants were presented in a randomized order interspersed with water rinse licks presented on a variable ratio schedule. A tastant-specific significant increase in the proportion of long pauses in licking following quinine presentation was defined as evidence of “behavioral identification.” Rats with aversion training given three licks of all taste stimuli paused significantly more often after quinine by the fourth interlick interval, ~580 ms. Control rats showed no evidence of quinine (0.1 mM) identification. When rats in all conditioning groups were tested with a high concentration of quinine (10 mM), a single lick was sufficient to produce significant pausing after quinine, but not until the fourth interlick interval, i.e., ~580 ms. Testing rats with only two tastants rather than four in a session had no effect on the speed of quinine identification. Present data confirm that a single lick is sufficient for rats to identify a taste stimulus, but that additional licks occur before evidence of identification is apparent. Furthermore, learning, tastant concentration and motivation to drink can all modify the speed of behavioral identification.