Cerebral Control of Contralateral and Ipsilateral Arm, Hand and Finger Movements in the Split-Brain Rhesus Monkey

Brinkman, J.; Kuypers, H.G.J.M.

doi:10.1093/brain/96.4.653

Cited by 451 publications

(201 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

181

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It has been shown that ipsilateral muscles to the transport grasp mechanism can be inXuenced by bilateral hemispheric networks in both humans (Farnè et al, 2003) and monkeys (Brinkman & Kuypers, 1973) and it has been presumed that interhemispheric communication is necessary for the coordination of reaching and grasping (Gazzaniga, 2000). However, it is not clear how the lesion to the splenium of the corpus callosum contributes to the absence of coordination between the two visuomotor channels seen in AC.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prehension movements in a patient (AC) with posterior parietal cortex damage and posterior callosal section

Frak

Paulignan

Jeannerod

et al. 2006

Brain and Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prehension movements of the right hand were recorded in a right-handed man (AC), with an injury to the left posterior parietal cortex (PPC) and with a section of the left half of the splenium. The kinematic analysis of AC's grasping movements in direct and perturbed conditions was compared to that of Wve control subjects. A novel eVect in prehension was revealed-a hemispace eVect-in healthy controls only. Movements to the left hemispace were faster, longer, and with a smaller grasp aperture; perturbation of both object position and distance resulted in the attenuation of the direction eVect on movement time and the time to velocity peak, with a reverse pattern in the time to maximum grip aperture. Nevertheless, the correlation between transport velocity amplitude and grasp aperture remained stable in both perturbed and non-perturbed movements, reXecting the coordination between reaching and grasping in control subjects. In contrast, transport and grasp, as well as their coordination in both direct and perturbed conditions, were negatively aVected by the PPC and splenium lesion in AC, suggesting that transport and grasp rely on two functionally identiWable subsystems. 

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prehension movements in a patient (AC) with posterior parietal cortex damage and posterior callosal section

Frak

Paulignan

Jeannerod

et al. 2006

Brain and Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For the present investigation, the motor performances at the modified Brinkman board task e static e and the rotating Brinkman board task e moving either clockwise or counterclockwise e were analysed. These two tasks were described in more detail in previous studies (Brinkman and Kuypers, 1973;Brinkman, 1984;Liu and Rouiller, 1999;Freund et al, 2009;Kaeser et al, 2010Kaeser et al, , 2011Schmidlin et al, 2011) and can be seen on the following web page: http://www.unifr.ch/neuro/rouiller/ research/brink.php. For each monkey, the performance of the left hand and the right hand were analysed separately.…”

Section: Subjects and Behavioural Tasksmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The neural representation of such motor habit underlying a motor sequence performed mainly automatically is poorly understood. To address this issue, adult monkeys were trained to perform repetitive manual dexterity tasks (derived from previous versions: see Brinkman and Kuypers, 1973;Brinkman, 1984), comprising a spatial component and a temporal sequence, thus possibly implicating dlPFC, at least during the training phase (Shima et al, 2007). Nevertheless, contrarily to most, if not all, studies on dlPFC (e.g., Barone and Joseph, 1989;Ninokura et al, 2004;Shima et al, 2007), which are built on conditional tasks with delay and emphasize on the retention of a pertinent information (spatial) used to execute the sequential task correctly, the present results are based on "free-will" manual dexterity tasks (see Schmidlin et al, 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Representation of motor habit in a sequence of repetitive reach and grasp movements performed by macaque monkeys: Evidence for a contribution of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex

Kaeser

Wannier

Brunet

et al. 2013

Cortex

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the context of an autologous cell transplantation study, a unilateral biopsy of cortical tissue was surgically performed from the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC) in two intact adult macaque monkeys (dlPFC lesioned group), together with the implantation of a chronic chamber providing access to the left motor cortex. Three other monkeys were subjected to the same chronic chamber implantation, but without dlPFC biopsy (control group). All monkeys were initially trained to perform sequential manual dexterity tasks, requiring precision grip. The motor performance and the prehension's sequence (temporal order to grasp pellets from different spatial locations) were analysed for each hand.Following the surgery, transient and moderate deficits of manual dexterity per se occurred in both groups, indicating that they were not due to the dlPFC lesion (most likely related to the recording chamber implantation and/or general anaesthesia/medication). In contrast, changes of motor habit were observed for the sequential order of grasping in the two monkeys with dlPFC lesion only. The changes were more prominent in the monkey subjected to the largest lesion, supporting the notion of a specific effect of the dlPFC lesion on the motor habit of the monkeys. These observations are reminiscent of previous studies using conditional tasks with delay that have proposed a specialization of the dlPFC for visuo-spatial working memory, except that this is in a different context of "free-will", nonconditional manual dexterity task, without a component of working memory.

show abstract

“…A variety of pathways could mediate the proximal and axial ipsilateral MEPs, including ipsilateral corticospinal, transcallosal or cortico-bulbospinal pathways. In particular, ipsilateral corticospinal (Brinkman and Kuypers 1973) and cortico-bulbospinal pathways preferentially project to medial motor nuclei of the anterior horn and thus are considered to be important in the control of axial and proximal limb muscles (Kuypers 1964).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ipsilateral versus contralateral cortical motor projections to a shoulder adductor in chronic hemiparetic stroke: implications for the expression of arm synergies

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An increase in ipsilateral descending motor pathway activity has been reported following hemiparetic stroke. In axial muscles, increased ipsilateral cortical activity has been correlated with good recovery whereas in distal arm muscles it is correlated with poor recovery. Currently, little is known about the control of proximal upper limb muscles following stroke. This muscle group is less impaired than the distal arm muscles following stroke, yet contributes to the abnormal motor coordination patterns associated with movements of the arm which can severely impair reaching ability. This study used transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to evaluate the presence and magnitude of ipsilateral and contralateral projections to the pectoralis major (PMJ) muscle in stroke survivors. A laterality index (LI) was used to investigate the relationship between ipsilateral and contralateral projections and strength, clinical impairment level, and the degree of abnormal coordination expressed in the arm. The ipsilateral and contralateral hemispheres were stimulated using 90% TMS intensity while the subject generated shoulder adduction torques in both arms. Motor evoked potentials (MEPs) were measured in the paretic and non-paretic PMJ. The secondary torque at the elbow was measured during maximal adduction as an indicator of the degree of extensor synergy. Ipsilateral MEPs were most common in stroke survivors with moderate to severe motor deficits. The LI was correlated with clinical impairment level (P = 0.05) and the degree of extension synergy expressed in the arm (P = 0.03). The LI was not correlated with strength. These results suggest that increased excitability of ipsilateral pathways projecting to the proximal upper arm may contribute to the expression of the Correspondence to: Susan Schwerin, sc.schwerin@yahoo.com. extension synergy following stroke. These findings are discussed in relation to a possible unmasking or upregulation of oligosynaptic cortico-bulbospinal pathways following stroke. NIH Public Access

show abstract

Cerebral Control of Contralateral and Ipsilateral Arm, Hand and Finger Movements in the Split-Brain Rhesus Monkey

Cited by 451 publications

References 0 publications

Prehension movements in a patient (AC) with posterior parietal cortex damage and posterior callosal section

Prehension movements in a patient (AC) with posterior parietal cortex damage and posterior callosal section

Representation of motor habit in a sequence of repetitive reach and grasp movements performed by macaque monkeys: Evidence for a contribution of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex

Ipsilateral versus contralateral cortical motor projections to a shoulder adductor in chronic hemiparetic stroke: implications for the expression of arm synergies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About