Techniques for fast noninvasive control of neuronal excitability will be of major importance for analyzing and understanding neuronal networks and animal behavior. To develop these tools we demonstrated that two light-activated signaling proteins, vertebrate rat rhodopsin 4 (RO4) and the green algae channelrhodospin 2 (ChR2), could be used to control neuronal excitability and modulate synaptic transmission. Vertebrate rhodopsin couples to the Gi͞o, pertussis toxin-sensitive pathway to allow modulation of G protein-gated inward rectifying potassium channels and voltagegated Ca 2؉ channels. Light-mediated activation of RO4 in cultured hippocampal neurons reduces neuronal firing within ms by hyperpolarization of the somato-dendritic membrane and when activated at presynaptic sites modulates synaptic transmission and paired-pulse facilitation. In contrast, somato-dendritic activation of ChR2 depolarizes neurons sufficiently to induce immediate action potentials, which precisely follow the ChR2 activation up to light stimulation frequencies of 20 Hz. To demonstrate that these constructs are useful for regulating network behavior in intact organisms, embryonic chick spinal cords were electroporated with either construct, allowing the frequency of episodes of spontaneous bursting activity, known to be important for motor circuit formation, to be precisely controlled. Thus light-activated vertebrate RO4 and green algae ChR2 allow the antagonistic control of neuronal function within ms to s in a precise, reversible, and noninvasive manner in cultured neurons and intact vertebrate spinal cords.A major challenge in understanding the relationship between neural activity and development and between neuronal circuit activity and specific behaviors is to be able to control the activity of large populations of neurons or regions of individual nerve cells simultaneously. Recently, it was demonstrated that neuronal circuits can be manipulated by expressing mutated ion channels or G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs). For example, the regional expression of a genetically modified K ϩ channel in Drosophila was able to reduce the excitability of targeted cells (i.e., muscle, neurons, photoreceptors) (1). Silencing of cortical neurons was achieved by binding of the peptide allostatin to its exogenously expressed receptor (2). Recently, Zemelman et al. (3) elegantly demonstrated that light activation of the protein complex, encoded by the Drosophila photoreceptor genes (i.e., arrestin-2, rhodopsin, and G protein ␣ subunit), could induce action potential firing of hippocampal neurons. Activation and deactivation of neuronal firing could also be achieved when ligand-gated ion channels, such as the capsaicin receptor, menthol receptor, purinergic receptors, or lightcontrollable K ϩ channel blockers, were used to control firing in hippocampal neurons (4, 5). However, the application of these techniques to control neuronal function especially in neural circuits and living animals is limited by their relatively slow time course, the complex...

No abstract

Summary Neuromechanical principles define the properties and problems that shape neural solutions for movement. Although the theoretical and experimental evidence is debated, we present arguments for consistent structures in motor patterns, i.e. motor modules, that are neuromechanical solutions for movement particular to an individual and shaped by evolutionary, developmental, and learning processes. As a consequence, motor modules may be useful in assessing sensorimotor deficits specific to an individual, and define targets for the rational development of novel rehabilitation therapies that enhance neural plasticity and sculpt motor recovery. We propose that motor module organization is disrupted and may be improved by therapy in spinal cord injury, stroke, and Parkinson’s disease. Recent studies provide insights into the yet unknown underlying neural mechanisms of motor modules, motor impairment and motor learning, and may lead to better understanding of the causal nature of modularity and its underlying neural substrates.

Neuromechanics seeks to understand how muscles, sense organs, motor pattern generators, and brain interact to produce coordinated movement, not only in complex terrain but also when confronted with unexpected perturbations. Applications of neuromechanics include ameliorating human health problems (including prosthesis design and restoration of movement following brain or spinal cord injury), as well as the design, actuation and control of mobile robots. In animals, coordinated movement emerges from the interplay among descending output from the central nervous system, sensory input from body and environment, muscle dynamics, and the emergent dynamics of the whole animal. The inevitable coupling between neural information processing and the emergent mechanical behavior of animals is a central theme of neuromechanics. Fundamentally, motor control involves a series of transformations of information, from brain and spinal cord to muscles to body, and back to brain. The control problem revolves around the specific transfer functions that describe each transformation. The transfer functions depend on the rules of organization and operation that determine the dynamic behavior of each subsystem (i.e., central processing, force generation, emergent dynamics, and sensory processing). In this review, we (1) consider the contributions of muscles, (2) sensory processing, and (3) central networks to motor control, (4) provide examples to illustrate the interplay among brain, muscles, sense organs and the environment in the control of movement, and (5) describe advances in both robotics and neuromechanics that have emerged from application of biological principles in robotic design. Taken together, these studies demonstrate that (1) intrinsic properties of muscle contribute to dynamic stability and control of movement, particularly immediately after perturbations; (2) proprioceptive feedback reinforces these intrinsic self-stabilizing properties of muscle; (3) control systems must contend with inevitable time delays that can simplify or complicate control; and (4) like most animals under a variety of circumstances, some robots use a trial and error process to tune central feedforward control to emergent body dynamics.