Selective sensorimotor modulation operates during cognitive representation of movement

The effects of verbal and spatial working memory on short- and long-latency sensorimotor circuits in the motor cortex

Multiple sensorimotor loops converge in the motor cortex to create an adaptable system capable of context-specific sensorimotor control. Afferent inhibition provides a non-invasive tool to investigate the substrates by which procedural and cognitive control processes interact to shape motor corticospinal projections. Varying the transcranial magnetic stimulation properties during afferent inhibition can probe specific sensorimotor circuits that contribute to short- and long-latency periods of inhibition in response to the peripheral stimulation. The current study used short- (SAI) and long-latency (LAI) afferent inhibition to probe the influence of verbal and spatial working memory load on the specific sensorimotor circuits recruited by posterior-anterior (PA) and anterior-posterior (AP) TMS-induced current. Participants completed two sessions where SAI and LAI were assessed during the short-term maintenance of two- or six-item sets of letters (verbal) or stimulus locations (spatial). The only difference between the sessions was the direction of the induced current. PA SAI decreased as the verbal working memory load increased. In contrast, AP SAI was not modulated by verbal working memory load. Visuospatial working memory load did not affect PA or AP SAI. Neither PA LAI nor AP LAI were sensitive to verbal or spatial working memory load. The dissociation of short-latency PA and AP sensorimotor circuits and short- and long-latency PA sensorimotor circuits with increasing verbal working memory load support multiple convergent sensorimotor loops that provide distinct functional information to facilitate context-specific supraspinal control.

Effects of sensory afferent input on motor cortex excitability of agonist and antagonist muscles

In this study, we aimed to analyze control mechanisms of short-latency afferent inhibition (SAI) during motor output exertion from an agonist or antagonist muscle. The motor task involved index finger abduction (agonist) and adduction (antagonist). In Experiment 1, motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) were recorded from the first dorsal interosseous (FDI) muscle with and without SAI at three output force levels. In Experiment 2, MEPs were recorded with and without SAI at various time points immediately before the muscle output. Experiment 1 showed that inhibition decreased with an increase in muscle output in the agonist muscle but increased in the antagonist muscle. Experiment 2 showed a decreasing trend of inhibition in the agonist muscle immediately before contraction but showed no significant change in the antagonist muscle. MEPs without electrical stimulation during the reaction time increased in both directions of movement as compared to those in the resting state. These results suggest that SAI modulation strongly influences smooth motor output. Analyzing the inhibitory or enhanced mechanisms during the performance of motor output by SAI in patients with motor impairment and comparing them with the mechanisms seen in healthy participants will improve our understanding of the neurophysiological mechanisms relevant to various situations (e.g., rehabilitation and sports).

Effects of finger pinch motor imagery on short-latency afferent inhibition and corticospinal excitability

Motor imagery is a cognitive process involving the simulation of motor actions without actual movements. Despite the reported positive effects of motor imagery training on motor function, the underlying neurophysiological mechanisms have yet to be fully elucidated. Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to investigate how sustained tonic finger-pinching motor imagery modulates sensorimotor integration and corticospinal excitability using short-latency afferent inhibition (SAI) and single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) assessments, respectively. Able-bodied individuals participated in the study and assessments were conducted under two experimental conditions in a randomized order between participants: (1) participants performed motor imagery of a pinch task while observing a visual image displayed on a monitor (Motor Imagery), and (2) participants remained at rest with their eyes fixed on the monitor displaying a cross mark (Control). For each condition, sensorimotor integration and corticospinal excitability were evaluated during sustained tonic motor imagery in separate sessions. Sensorimotor integration was assessed by SAI responses, representing inhibition of motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) in the first dorsal interosseous muscle elicited by TMS following median nerve stimulation. Corticospinal excitability was assessed by MEP responses elicited by single-pulse TMS. There was no significant difference in the magnitude of SAI responses between motor imagery and Control conditions, while MEP responses were significantly facilitated during the Motor Imagery condition compared to the Control condition. These findings suggest that motor imagery facilitates corticospinal excitability, without altering sensorimotor integration, possibly due to insufficient activation of the somatosensory circuits or lack of afferent feedback during sustained tonic motor imagery.

Transcranial direct current stimulation alters sensorimotor modulation during cognitive representation of movement

We recently demonstrated, by means of short latency afferent inhibition (SAI), that before an imagined movement, during the reaction time (RT), SAI decreases only in the movement-related muscle (sensorimotor modulation) and that a correlation exists between sensorimotor modulation and motor imagery (MI) ability. Excitatory anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (a-tDCS) on M1 could enhance the MI outcome; however, mechanisms of action are not completely known. Here, we assessed if a-tDCS on M1 prior to an MI task could affect sensorimotor modulation. Participants imagined abducting the index or little finger in response to an acoustic signal. SAI was evaluated from the first dorsal interosseus after the “go” signal, before the expected electromyographic (EMG) activity. Participants received 20-min 1.5 mA a-tDCS or sham-tDCS on M1 on two different days, in random order. Results showed that a-tDCS on M1 increases the sensorimotor modulation consisting of a weakening of SAI after the Go signal with respect to sham-tDCS, in the movement-related muscle right before the beginning of MI. These results suggest that a-tDCS on M1 further potentiate those circuits responsible for sensorimotor modulation in the RT phase of MI. Increased sensorimotor modulation during MI may be one of the mechanisms involved in MI improvement after a-tDCS over M1.

Sensorimotor inhibition during emotional processing

Visual processing of emotional stimuli has been shown to engage complex cortical and subcortical networks, but it is still unclear how it affects sensorimotor integration processes. To fill this gap, here, we used a TMS protocol named short-latency afferent inhibition (SAI), capturing sensorimotor interactions, while healthy participants were observing emotional body language (EBL) and International Affective Picture System (IAPS) stimuli. Participants were presented with emotional (fear- and happiness-related) or non-emotional (neutral) EBL and IAPS stimuli while SAI was tested at 120 ms and 300 ms after pictures presentation. At the earlier time point (120 ms), we found that fear-related EBL and IAPS stimuli selectively enhanced SAI as indexed by the greater inhibitory effect of somatosensory afferents on motor excitability. Larger early SAI enhancement was associated with lower scores at the Behavioural Inhibition Scale (BIS). At the later time point (300 ms), we found a generalized SAI decrease for all kind of stimuli (fear, happiness or neutral). Because the SAI index reflects integrative activity of cholinergic sensorimotor circuits, our findings suggest greater sensitivity of such circuits during early (120 ms) processing of threat-related information. Moreover, the correlation with BIS score may suggest increased attention and sensory vigilance in participants with greater anxiety-related dispositions. In conclusion, the results of this study show that sensorimotor inhibition is rapidly enhanced while processing threatening stimuli and that SAI protocol might be a valuable option in evaluating emotional-motor interactions in physiological and pathological conditions.

Motor Cortical Excitability Changes in Preparation to Concentric and Eccentric Movements

Specific neural mechanisms operate at corticospinal levels during eccentric and concentric contractions. Here, we investigated the difference in corticospinal excitability (CSE) when preparing these two types of contraction. In this study we enrolled 16 healthy participants. They were asked to perform an instructed-delay reaction time (RT) task involving a concentric or an eccentric contraction of the right first dorsal interosseus muscle, as a response to a proprioceptive cue (Go signal) presented 1 s after a warning signal. We tested CSE at different time points ranging from 300 ms before up to 40 ms after a Go signal. CSE increased 300-150 ms before the Go signal for both contractions. Interestingly, significant changes in CSE in the time interval around the Go signal (from -150 ms to +40 ms) were only revealed in eccentric contraction. We observed a significant decrease in excitability immediately before the Go cue (Pre_50) and a significant increase 40 ms after it (Post_40) with respect to the MEPs recorded at Pre_150. Finally, CSE in eccentric contraction was lower before the Go cue (Pre_50) and greater after it (Post_40) compared to the concentric contraction. A similar result was also found in NoMov paradigm, used to disentangle the effects induced by movement preparation from those induced by the movement preparation linked to the proprioceptive cue. We could conclude that different neural mechanisms observed during concentric and eccentric contractions are mirrored with a different time-specific modulation of CSE in the preparatory phase to the movement.

Association of short- and long-latency afferent inhibition with human behavior

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) paired with nerve stimulation evokes short-latency afferent inhibition (SAI) and long-latency afferent inhibition (LAI), which are non-invasive assessments of the excitability of the sensorimotor system. SAI and LAI are abnormally reduced in various special populations in comparison to healthy controls. However, the relationship between afferent inhibition and human behavior remains unclear. The purpose of this review is to survey the current literature and synthesize observations and patterns that affect the interpretation of SAI and LAI in the context of human behavior. We discuss human behaviour across the motor and cognitive domains, and in special and control populations. Further, we discuss future considerations for research in this field and the potential for clinical applications. By understanding how human behavior is mediated by changes in SAI and LAI, this can allow us to better understand the neurophysiological underpinnings of human motor control.

Consolidation and retention of motor skill after motor imagery training

Complex motor tasks are learned through training which results in lasting improvement in sensorimotor performance and accuracy. Learning a motor skill is commonly attained via physical execution. However, research has shown that cognitive training, such as motor imagery (MI), effectively facilitates skill learning. Neurophysiological findings suggest that learning-induced plasticity in the human motor cortex, subserving consolidation and retention of motor skills, is stronger after movement execution (ME) than after MI training. Here, we designed an experimental task able to test for the fast and slow learning phases and for retention of motor skills for both MI and ME. We hypothesize that differences between MI and ME training would emerge in terms of reduced consolidation and retention of motor skills. Twenty-four young healthy subjects were divided into two groups, performing MI or ME training. Participants wore sensor-engineered gloves and their sensorimotor performance was assessed over a period of 15 days with 4-days training. We analysed the touch duration (TD), the inter-tapping interval (ITI), movement rate and accuracy. Results showed that (i) during the first phase of acquisition of motor skills, sensorimotor performance improved similarly in MI and ME groups; (ii) during the second learning phase movement rate increased more in ME than MI group and this difference was mainly driven by differences in the duration of TD; (iii) consolidation deficits with MI training reflected in impaired retention of the acquired skills, as TD and ITI were larger and movement rate was lower in the MI group with respect to the ME, till to 10 days after the last training session. Explicit component of motor learning, accuracy, was maintained in retention phase in both groups. Following our hypothesis, our findings show that MI training is as effective as ME within the first learning phase, but consolidation and retention of motor skills are less effective following MI training. This study highlights MI limitations and suggests option to enhance MI, as by providing an external sensory feedback.