Comparing brain activation associated with isolated upper and lower limb movement across corresponding joints

Abstract

It was shown recently that functional activation across brain motor areas during locomotion and foot movements are similar but differ substantially from activation related to upper extremity movement (Miyai [2001]: Neuroimage 14:1186-1192). The activation pattern may be a function of the behavioral context of the movement rather than of its mechanical properties. We compare motor system activation patterns associated with isolated single-joint movement of corresponding joints in arm and leg carried out in equal frequency and range. Eleven healthy volunteers underwent BOLD-weighted fMRI while performing repetitive elbow or knee extension/flexion. To relate elbow and knee activation to the well-described patterns of finger movement, serial finger-to-thumb opposition was assessed in addition. After identifying task-related voxels using statistical parametric mapping, activation was measured in five regions of interest (ROI; primary motor [M1] and somatosensory cortex [S1], premotor cortex, supplementary motor area [SMA] divided into preSMA and SMA-proper, and cerebellum). Differences in the degree of activation across ROIs were found between elbow and knee movement. SMA-proper activation was prominent for knee, but almost absent for elbow movement (P < 0.05); finger movement produced small but constant SMA-proper activation. Ipsilateral M1 activation was detected during knee and finger movement, but was absent for the elbow task (P < 0.05). Knee movement showed less lateralization in M1 and S1 than other tasks (P < 0.05). The data demonstrate that central motor structures contribute differently to isolated elbow and knee movement. Activation during knee movement shows similarities to gait-related activation patterns.

Preparatory band specific premotor cortical activity differentiates upper and lower extremity movement

“…Here, the authors demonstrate hand movement observation evoked activity of the rostral ventral premotor cortex, while foot movement observation evoked activity of dorsal area 6, which is in closer proximity to mesial areas. fMRI studies have shown similar patterns of distinction between knee and elbow movements (Luft et al 2002). Detailed analysis has also revealed similar premotor mapping in primates (Rizzolatti et al 1998).…”

Tract-Specific and Region of Interest Analysis of Corticospinal Tract Integrity in Subcortical Ischemic Stroke: Reliability and Correlation with Motor Function of Affected Lower Extremity

“…First, patients with stroke may have difficulty performing isolated joint movements without any associated movements or spasticity, which then may cause larger head motion during MR imaging. 44,49 Second, the BOLD signals in ipsilesional M1 may be significantly decreased or even absent while patients with stroke perform movements with the affected upper or lower extremity. [50][51][52][53] Movement-related BOLD signals may shift from the primary motor cortex to secondary association motor networks or even the contralesional hemisphere in response to stroke lesions.…”

Ankle dorsiflexion as an fMRI paradigm to assay motor control for walking during rehabilitation

“…Cerebral activity has been assessed while subjects imagine walking, but the cerebral resources used by an individual to visualize ambulation are open to wide variations across subjects. Prior studies have used toe, foot, or knee movements during fMRI (Debaere et al, 2001;Kollias et al, 2001;Lafleur et al, 2002;Leherricy et al, 1998;Lotze et al, 2000Lotze et al, , 2003bLuft et al, 2002;Sabbah et al, 2002;Sahyoun et al, 2004) and PET (Johannsen et al, 2001;Roelcke et al, 1997) to investigate motor control and somatotopy in normal and neurologically impaired subjects. We have been evaluating ankle dorsiflexion as a potential marker for gains in motor control of the lower extremity during rehabilitation and as a substitute for multijoint walking movements of the affected leg in patients with stroke and SCI (Dobkin, 2000;Dobkin and Sullivan, 2001;Dobkin et al, 2000).…”