User menu

Accès à distance ? S'identifier sur le proxy UCLouvain | Saint-Louis

Comparison of motor inhibition in variants of the instructed-delay choice reaction time task.

Primary tabs

download
  • Open access
  • PDF
  • 1.21 M
Quoilin, Caroline [UCL] Lambert, Julien [UCL] Jacob, Benvenuto [UCL] KLEIN, Pierre-Alexandre [UCL] Duque, Julie [UCL]

Using instructed-delay choice reaction time (RT) paradigms, many previous studies have shown that the motor system is transiently inhibited during response preparation: motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) elicited by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) over the primary motor cortex are typically suppressed during the delay period. This effect has been observed in both selected and non-selected effectors, although MEP changes in selected effectors have been more inconsistent across task versions. Here, we compared changes in MEP amplitudes in three different variants of an instructed-delay choice RT task. All variants required participants to choose between left and right index finger movements but the responses were either provided "in the air" (Variant 1), on a regular keyboard (Variant 2), or on a response device designed to control from premature responses (Variant 3). The task variants also differed according to the visual layout (more concrete in Variant 3) and depending on whether participants received a feedback of their performance (absent in Variant 1). Behavior was globally comparable between the three variants of the task although the propensity to respond prematurely was highest in Variant 2 and lowest in Variant 3. MEPs elicited in a non-selected hand were similarly suppressed in the three variants of the task. However, significant differences emerged when considering MEPs elicited in the selected hand: these MEPs were suppressed in Variants 1 and 3 whereas they were often facilitated in Variant 2, especially in the right dominant hand. In conclusion, MEPs elicited in selected muscles seem to be more sensitive to small variations to the task design than those recorded in non-selected effectors, probably because they reflect a complex combination of inhibitory and facilitatory influences on the motor output system. Finally, the use of a standard keyboard seems to be particularly inappropriate because it encourages participants to respond promptly with no means to control for premature responses, probably increasing the relative amount of facilitatory influences at the time motor inhibition is probed.

Document type Article de périodique (Journal article)
Access type Accès libre
Publication date 2016
Language Anglais
Journal information "PLoS One" - Vol. 11, no.8, p. e0161964 (Aug 31 2016)
Peer reviewed yes
Publisher Public Library of Science
issn 1932-6203
e-issn 1932-6203
Publication status Publié
Affiliation UCL - SSS/IONS/COSY - Systems & cognitive Neuroscience
Links
  1. Murakami Masayoshi, Mainen Zachary F, Preparing and selecting actions with neural populations: toward cortical circuit mechanisms, 10.1016/j.conb.2015.01.005
  2. Duque J., Lew D., Mazzocchio R., Olivier E., Ivry R. B., Evidence for Two Concurrent Inhibitory Mechanisms during Response Preparation, 10.1523/jneurosci.5722-09.2010
  3. Duque J., Labruna L., Verset S., Olivier E., Ivry R. B., Dissociating the Role of Prefrontal and Premotor Cortices in Controlling Inhibitory Mechanisms during Motor Preparation, 10.1523/jneurosci.4299-12.2012
  4. Greenhouse Ian, Saks Dylan, Hoang Timothy, Ivry Richard B., Inhibition during response preparation is sensitive to response complexity, 10.1152/jn.00999.2014
  5. Greenhouse I., Sias A., Labruna L., Ivry R. B., Nonspecific Inhibition of the Motor System during Response Preparation, 10.1523/jneurosci.1436-15.2015
  6. Hasbroucq Thierry, Kaneko Hidekazu, Akamatsu Motoyuki, Possamaı̈ Camille-Aimé, Preparatory inhibition of cortico-spinal excitability: a transcranial magnetic stimulation study in man, 10.1016/s0926-6410(96)00069-9
  7. Quoilin C., Derosiere G., Global and Specific Motor Inhibitory Mechanisms during Action Preparation, 10.1523/jneurosci.3664-15.2015
  8. Haith A. M., Pakpoor J., Krakauer J. W., Independence of Movement Preparation and Movement Initiation, 10.1523/jneurosci.3245-15.2016
  9. Kaufman Matthew T, Churchland Mark M, Ryu Stephen I, Shenoy Krishna V, Cortical activity in the null space: permitting preparation without movement, 10.1038/nn.3643
  10. Labruna Ludovica, Lebon Florent, Duque Julie, Klein Pierre-Alexandre, Cazares Christian, Ivry Richard B., Generic Inhibition of the Selected Movement and Constrained Inhibition of Nonselected Movements during Response Preparation, 10.1162/jocn_a_00492
  11. F Lebon, Cereb Cortex, 115, 1279 (2016)
  12. E Wilhelm, Front Hum Neurosci (2016)
  13. Hasbroucq T., Kaneko Hidekazu, Akamatsu Motoyuki, Possama¨ı Camille-Aimé, The time-course of preparatory spinal and cortico-spinal inhibition: an H-reflex and transcranial magnetic stimulation study in man, 10.1007/s002210050597
  14. Oldfield R.C., The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory, 10.1016/0028-3932(71)90067-4
  15. Vandermeeren Yves, Davare Marco, Duque Julie, Olivier Etienne, Reorganization of cortical hand representation in congenital hemiplegia, 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2009.06619.x
  16. Duque Julie, Labruna Ludovica, Cazares Christian, Ivry Richard B., Dissociating the influence of response selection and task anticipation on corticospinal suppression during response preparation, 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.08.006
  17. Derosiere G., Billot M., Ward E. T., Perrey S., Adaptations of Motor Neural Structures' Activity to Lapses in Attention, 10.1093/cercor/bht206
  18. Klein P.-A., Olivier E., Duque J., Influence of Reward on Corticospinal Excitability during Movement Preparation, 10.1523/jneurosci.1701-12.2012
  19. Klein Pierre-Alexandre, Duque Julie, Labruna Ludovica, Ivry Richard B., Comparison of the two cerebral hemispheres in inhibitory processes operative during movement preparation, 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.10.007
  20. Mars Rogier B., Bestmann Sven, Rothwell John C., Haggard Patrick, Effects of motor preparation and spatial attention on corticospinal excitability in a delayed-response paradigm, 10.1007/s00221-007-1055-4
  21. van den Hurk P., Mars R. B., van Elswijk G., Hegeman J., Pasman J. W., Bloem B. R., Toni I., Online Maintenance of Sensory and Motor Representations: Effects on Corticospinal Excitability, 10.1152/jn.01005.2006
  22. Bestmann Sven, Duque Julie, Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation : Decomposing the Processes Underlying Action Preparation, 10.1177/1073858415592594
  23. Bestmann Sven, Krakauer John W., The uses and interpretations of the motor-evoked potential for understanding behaviour, 10.1007/s00221-014-4183-7
  24. Davranche Karen, Tandonnet Christophe, Burle Boris, Meynier Chloé, Vidal Franck, Hasbroucq Thierry, The dual nature of time preparation: neural activation and suppression revealed by transcranial magnetic stimulation of the motor cortex, 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2007.05588.x
  25. Duque J., Ivry R. B., Role of Corticospinal Suppression during Motor Preparation, 10.1093/cercor/bhn230
  26. Sinclair Craig, Hammond Geoffrey R., Reduced intracortical inhibition during the foreperiod of a warned reaction time task, 10.1007/s00221-007-1241-4
  27. Macdonell R.A.L., Shapiro B. E., Chiappa K. H., Helmers S. L., Cros D., Day B. J., Shahani B. T., Hemispheric threshold differences for motor evoked potentials produced by magnetic coil stimulation, 10.1212/wnl.41.9.1441
  28. Triggs William J., Subramanium Babu, Rossi Fabian, Hand preference and transcranial magnetic stimulation asymmetry of cortical motor representation, 10.1016/s0006-8993(99)01629-7
Bibliographic reference Quoilin, Caroline ; Lambert, Julien ; Jacob, Benvenuto ; KLEIN, Pierre-Alexandre ; Duque, Julie. Comparison of motor inhibition in variants of the instructed-delay choice reaction time task.. In: PLoS One, Vol. 11, no.8, p. e0161964 (Aug 31 2016)
Permanent URL http://hdl.handle.net/2078.1/179876