Biology subjects

Riek, S.

Publications and source records attributed to Riek, S..

6 recordsLinked to original sources

bioRxiv2020

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 interindividual 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 30{degrees} 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.

neuroscience↗

bioRxiv2020

Cumulative distribution functions: An alternative approach to examine the triggering of prepared motor actions in the StartReact effect

There has been much debate concerning whether startling sensory stimuli can activate a fast-neural pathway for movement triggering (StartReact) which is different from that of voluntary movements. Activity in sternocleidomastoid (SCM) electromyogram is suggested to indicate activation of this pathway. We evaluated whether SCM activity can accurately identify trials which may differ in their neurophysiological triggering and assessed the use of cumulative distribution functions (CDFs) of reaction time (RT) data to identify trials with the shortest RTs for analysis. Using recent datasets from the StartReact literature, we examined the relationship between RT and SCM activity. We categorised data into short/longer RT bins using CDFs and used linear mixed effects models to compare potential conclusions that can be drawn when categorising data on the basis of RT versus on the basis of SCM activity. The capacity of SCM to predict RT is task-specific, making it an unreliable indicator of distinct neurophysiological mechanisms. Classification of trials using CDFs is capable of capturing potential task- or muscle-related differences in triggering whilst avoiding the pitfalls of the traditional SCM activity based classification method. We conclude that SCM activity is not always evident on trials that show the early triggering of movements seen in the StartReact phenomenon. We further propose that a more comprehensive analysis of data may be achieved through the inclusion of CDF analyses. These findings have implications for future research investigating movement triggering as well as for potential therapeutic applications of StartReact.

neuroscience↗

bioRxiv2018

Triggering mechanisms for motor actions: A mini meta-analysis and experimental data.

Motor actions can be released much sooner than normal when the go-signal is of very high intensity (> 100dBa). Although statistical evidence from individual studies has been mixed, it has been assumed that sternocleidomastoid (SCM) muscle activity could be used to distinguish between two neural circuits involved in movement triggering. We summarized meta-analytically the available evidence for this hypothesis, comparing the difference in premotor reaction time (RT) of actions where SCM activity was elicited (SCM+ trials) by loud acoustic stimuli against trials in which it was absent (SCM- trials). We found ten studies, all reporting comparisons between SCM+ and SCM- trials. Our mini meta-analysis showed that premotor RTs are faster in SCM+ than in SCM- trials. We also present experimental data showing the effects of foreperiod predictability can induce differences in RT that would be of similar size to those attributed to the activation of different neurophysiological pathways to trigger prepared actions. We discuss plausible physiological mechanisms that would explain differences in premotor RTs between SCM+ and SCM-trials.

neuroscience↗

bioRxiv2018

Unilateral movement preparation causes task-specific modulation of TMS responses in the passive, opposite limb.

Corticospinal excitability is modulated for muscles on both sides of the body during unilateral movement preparation. For the effector, there is a progressive increase in excitability, and a shift in direction of muscle twitches evoked by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) toward the impending movement. By contrast, the directional characteristics of excitability changes in the opposite (passive) limb have not been fully characterized. Here we assessed how preparation of voluntary forces towards four spatially distinct visual targets with the left wrist alters muscle twitches and motor evoked potentials (MEPs) elicited by TMS of left motor cortex. MEPs were facilitated significantly more in muscles homologous to agonist rather than antagonist muscles in the active limb, from 120 ms prior to voluntary EMG onset. Thus, unilateral motor preparation has a directionally-specific influence on pathways projecting to the opposite limb that corresponds to the active muscles rather than the direction of movement in space. The directions of TMS-evoked twitches also deviated toward the impending force direction of the active limb, according to muscle-based coordinates, following the onset of voluntary EMG. The data indicate that preparation of a unilateral movement increases task-dependent excitability in ipsilateral motor cortex, or its downstream projections, that reflect the forces applied by the active limb in an intrinsic (body-centered), rather than an extrinsic (world-centered), coordinate system. The results suggest that ipsilateral motor cortical activity prior to unilateral action reflects the state of the active limb, rather than subliminal motor planning for the passive limb.

neuroscience↗

bioRxiv2016

The primary motor cortex is critical for the retention of implicit sensorimotor adaptation

Sensorimotor adaptation, or adaptation of movements to external perturbations, is thought to involve the primary motor cortex (M1). In addition to implicit error-driven remapping, explicit re-aiming strategies also contribute to sensorimotor adaptation. However, no studies to date have examined the role of M1 in implicit learning in isolation from explicit strategies. Because the application of explicit strategies requires time, it is possible to emphasise implicit learning by controlling the time available to prepare movement. Here, we examined the role of M1s role in implicit adaptation to rotated visual feedback whilst suppressing the use of explicit re-aiming strategies by limiting movement preparation times to less than 350ms. Perturbing M1 activity via single-pulse TMS during adaptation to a 30 {degrees} rotation of visual feedback did not alter the rate or extent of error compensation, but elicited poorer retention in post-adaptation trials with no perturbation. This work shows that M1 is critical in the retention of new visuomotor maps as a result of implicit adaptation to a perturbation in sensory feedback when strategic error correction processes are suppressed.\n\nHighlightsO_LIAdaptation of movements to perturbations occurs through explicit and implicit processes.\nC_LIO_LIHere, explicit strategies were suppressed by shortening movement preparation time.\nC_LIO_LIPerturbing motor cortex (M1) with TMS selectively impaired retention but not acquisition of sensorimotor adaptation.\nC_LIO_LIM1 plays a crucial role in retention of sensorimotor adaptation obtained via implicit learning.\nC_LI

neuroscience↗

bioRxiv2016

Cerebellar anodal tDCS increases implicit visuomotor remapping when strategic re-aiming is suppressed

The cerebellum is known to be critically involved in sensorimotor adaptation. Changes in cerebellar function alter behaviour when compensating for sensorimotor perturbations, as shown by non-invasive stimulation of the cerebellum and studies involving patients with cerebellar degeneration. It is known, 24 however, that behavioural responses to sensorimotor perturbations reflect both explicit processes (such as volitional aiming to one side of a target to counteract a rotation of visual feedback) and implicit, error-driven updating of sensorimotor maps. The contribution of the cerebellum to these explicit and implicit processes remains unclear. Here, we examined the role of the cerebellum in sensorimotor adaptation to a 30{degrees} rotation of visual feedback of hand position during target-reaching, when the capacity to use explicit processes was manipulated by controlling movement preparation times. Explicit re-aiming was suppressed in one condition by requiring subjects to initiate their movements within 300ms of target presentation, and permitted in another condition by requiring subjects to wait approximately 1050ms after target presentation before movement initiation. Similar to previous work, applying anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS; 1.5mA) to the right cerebellum during adaptation resulted in faster compensation for errors imposed by the rotation. After exposure to the rotation, we evaluated implicit remapping in no-feedback trials after providing participants with explicit knowledge that the rotation had been removed. Crucially, movements were more adapted in these no-feedback trials following cerebellar anodal tDCS than after sham stimulation in both long and short preparation groups. This suggests that cerebellar anodal tDCS increased implicit remapping during sensorimotor adaptation irrespective of preparation time constraints. This work shows that the cerebellum is critical in the formation of new visuomotor maps that correct perturbations in sensory feedback, both when explicit processes are suppressed and when allowed during sensorimotor adaptation.

neuroscience↗