To gain fundamental knowledge on how the brain controls motor actions, we studied in detail the interplay between MEG signals from the primary sensorimotor (SM1) cortex and the contraction force of 17 healthy adult humans (7 females, 10 males). SM1 activity was coherent at ∼20 Hz with surface electromyogram (as already extensively reported) but also with contraction force. In both cases, the effective coupling was dominant in the efferent direction. Across subjects, the level of ∼20 Hz coherence between cortex and periphery positively correlated with the “burstiness” of ∼20 Hz SM1 (Pearson r ≈ 0.65) and peripheral fluctuations (r ≈ 0.9). Thus, ∼20 Hz coherence between cortex and periphery is tightly linked to the presence of ∼20 Hz bursts in SM1 and peripheral activity. However, the very high correlation with peripheral fluctuations suggests that the periphery is the limiting factor. At frequencies <3 Hz, both SM1 signals and ∼20 Hz SM1 envelope were coherent with both force and its absolute change rate. The effective coupling dominated in the efferent direction between (1) force and the ∼20 Hz SM1 envelope and (2) the absolute change rate of the force and SM1 signals. Together, our data favor the view that ∼20 Hz coherence between cortex and periphery during isometric contraction builds on the presence of ∼20 Hz SM1 oscillations and needs not rely on feedback from the periphery. They also suggest that effective cortical proprioceptive processing operates at <3 Hz frequencies, even during steady isometric contractions.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Accurate motor actions are made possible by continuous communication between the cortex and spinal motoneurons, but the neurophysiological basis of this communication is poorly understood. Using MEG recordings in humans maintaining steady isometric muscle contractions, we found evidence that the cortex sends population-level motor commands that tend to structure according to the ∼20 Hz sensorimotor rhythm, and that it dynamically adapts these commands based on the <3 Hz fluctuations of proprioceptive feedback. To our knowledge, this is the first report to give a comprehensive account of how the human brain dynamically handles the flow of proprioceptive information and converts it into appropriate motor command to keep the contraction force steady.

CKC is a novel, noninvasive marker for the somatosensory system. Its robustness and practical ease make it attractive for bedside assessment of neurologically compromised newborns.

When your favourite athlete flops over the high-jump bar, you may twist your body in front of the TV screen. Such automatic motor facilitation, ‘mirroring’ or even overt imitation is not always appropriate. Here, we show, by monitoring motor-cortex brain rhythms with magnetoencephalography (MEG) in healthy adults, that viewing intermittent hand actions of another person, in addition to activation, phasically stabilizes the viewer's primary motor cortex, with the maximum of half a second after the onset of the seen movement. Such a stabilization was evident as enhanced cortex–muscle coherence at 16–20 Hz, despite signs of almost simultaneous suppression of rolandic rhythms of approximately 7 and 15 Hz as a sign of activation of the sensorimotor cortex. These findings suggest that inhibition suppresses motor output during viewing another person's actions, thereby withholding unintentional imitation.

No abstract

To maintain steady motor output, distracting sensory stimuli need to be blocked. To study the effects of brief auditory and visual distractors on the human primary motor (M1) cortex, we monitored magnetoencephalographic (MEG) cortical rhythms, electromyogram (EMG) of finger flexors, and corticomuscular coherence (CMC) during right-hand pinch (force 5-7% of maximum) while 1-kHz tones and checkerboard patterns were presented for 100 ms once every 3.5-5 s. Twenty-one subjects (out of twenty-two) showed statistically significant ∼20-Hz CMC. Both distractors elicited a covert startle-like response evident in changes of force and EMG (∼50% of the background variation) but without any visible movement, followed by ∼1-s enhancement of CMC (auditory on average by 75%, P < 0.001; visual by 33%, P < 0.05) and rolandic ∼20-Hz rhythm (auditory by 14%, P < 0.05; visual by 11%, P < 0.01). Directional coupling of coherence from muscle to the M1 cortex (EMG→MEG) increased for ∼0.5 s at the onset of the CMC enhancement, but only after auditory distractor (by 105%; P < 0.05), likely reflecting startle-related proprioceptive afference. The 20-Hz enhancements occurred in the left M1 cortex and were for the auditory stimuli preceded by an early suppression (by 7%, P < 0.05). Task-unrelated distractors modulated corticospinal coupling at ∼20 Hz. We propose that the distractors triggered covert startle-like responses, resulting in proprioceptive afference to the cortex, and that they also transiently disengaged the subject's attention from the fine-motor task. As a result, the corticospinal output was readjusted to keep the contraction force stable.