No abstract

The dorsal and ventral premotor cortices (PMd and PMv, respectively) each take part in unique aspects for the planning and execution of hand movements. These premotor areas are components of complex anatomical networks that include the primary motor cortex (M1) of both hemispheres. One way that PMd and PMv could play distinct roles in hand movements is by modulating the outputs of M1 differently. However, patterns of effects from PMd and PMv on the outputs of M1 have not been compared systematically. Our goals were to study how PMd within the same (i.e., ipsilateral or iPMd) and in the opposite hemisphere (i.e., contralateral or cPMd) can shape M1 outputs and then compare these effects with those induced by PMv. We used paired-pulse protocols with intracortical microstimulation techniques in sedated female cebus monkeys while recording EMG signals from intrinsic hand and forearm muscles. A conditioning stimulus was delivered in iPMd or cPMd concurrently or before a test stimulus in M1. The patterns of modulatory effects from PMd were compared with those from PMv collected in the same animals. Striking differences were revealed. Conditioning stimulation in iPMd induced more frequent and powerful inhibitory effects on M1 outputs compared with iPMv. In the opposite hemisphere, cPMd conditioning induced more frequent and powerful facilitatory effects than cPMv. These contrasting patterns of modulatory effects could allow PMd and PMv to play distinct functions for the control of hand movements and predispose them to undertake different, perhaps somewhat opposite, roles in motor recovery after brain injury.

The ventral premotor cortex (PMv) is a key node in the neural network involved in grasping. One way PMv can carry out this function is by modulating the outputs of the primary motor cortex (M1) to intrinsic hand and forearm muscles. As many PMv neurons discharge when grasping with either arm, both PMv within the same hemisphere (ipsilateral; iPMv) and in the opposite hemisphere (contralateral; cPMv) could modulate M1 outputs. Our objective was to compare modulatory effects of iPMv and cPMv on M1 outputs to intrinsic hand and forearm muscles. We used paired-pulse protocols with intracortical microstimulations in capuchin monkeys. A conditioning stimulus was applied in either iPMv or cPMv simultaneously or prior to a test stimulus in M1 and the effects quantified in electromyographic signals. Modulatory effects from iPMv were predominantly facilitatory, and facilitation was much more common and powerful on intrinsic hand than forearm muscles. In contrast, while the conditioning of cPMv could elicit facilitatory effects, in particular to intrinsic hand muscles, it was much more likely to inhibit M1 outputs. These data show that iPMv and cPMv have very different modulatory effects on the outputs of M1 to intrinsic hand and forearm muscles.

No abstract

Premotor areas of primates are specialized cortical regions that can contribute to hand movements by modulating the outputs of the primary motor cortex (M1). The goal of the present work was to study how the supplementary motor area (SMA) located within the same hemisphere [i.e., ipsilateral SMA (iSMA)] or the opposite hemisphere [i.e., contralateral (cSMA)] modulate the outputs of M1. We used paired-pulse protocols with intracortical stimulations in sedated capuchin monkeys. A conditioning stimulus in iSMA or cSMA was delivered simultaneously or before a test stimulus in M1 with different interstimulus intervals (ISIs) while electromyographic activity was recorded in hand and forearm muscles. The pattern of modulation from iSMA and cSMA shared some clear similarities. In particular, both areas predominantly induced facilitatory effects on M1 outputs with shorter ISIs and inhibitory effects with longer ISIs. However, the incidence and strength of facilitatory effects were greater for iSMA than cSMA. We then compared the pattern of modulatory effects from SMA to the ones from the dorsal and ventral premotor cortexes (PMd and PMv) collected in the same series of experiments. Among premotor areas, the impact of SMA on M1 outputs was always weaker than the one of either PMd or PMv, and this was regardless of the hemisphere, or the ISI, tested. These results show that SMA exerts a unique set of modulations on M1 outputs, which could support its specific function for the production of hand movements. NEW & NOTEWORTHY We unequivocally isolated stimulation to either the ipsilateral or contralateral supplementary motor area (SMA) using invasive techniques and compared their modulatory effects on the outputs of primary motor cortex (M1). Modulations from both SMAs shared many similarities. However, facilitatory effects evoked from ipsilateral SMA were more common and more powerful. This pattern differs from the ones of other premotor areas, which suggests that each premotor area makes unique contributions to the production of motor outputs.