Effects of visual stimulation on cortico-spinal coherence during isometric hand contraction in humans

Safri, Norlaili Mat; Murayama, Nobuki; Igasaki, Tomohiko; Hayashida, Yuki

doi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2006.03.003

Cited by 18 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Visual stimulation has been shown to enhance EEG-EMG coherence [Safri et al, 2007[Safri et al, , 2006. Moreover, we have recently shown that MEG-EMG coherence is phasically increased during observation of another person's brief actions, at the same time as the M1 rhythms are suppressed at slightly lower frequencies, suggesting that different neurophysiological mechanisms are involved in the activation and stabilization of the M1 output during action observation [Hari et al, 2014].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Phasic stabilization of motor output after auditory and visual distractors

Piitulainen

Bourguignon

Smeds

et al. 2015

Human Brain Mapping

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Phasic stabilization of motor output after auditory and visual distractors

Piitulainen

Bourguignon

Smeds

et al. 2015

Human Brain Mapping

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The force-tracking task of Common-IM only caused significant CMC in beta band (16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(30) Hz) above the threshold ; however, the Uncommon-IM task induced CMC in both beta band (16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(30) and low-gamma band (31-45 Hz) concurrently. One-trial coherence values of sEMG recorded on the right FDS and MEG recorded in the left M1 were illustrated as a curve in Fig.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…A broadband of CMC comprising both the beta-and gamma-band was found involving force production [19]. Some recent works have suggested that factors including force levels [20], attention resources (i.e., visual stimuli) [21], [22], and task complexity (i.e., level of precision task) [15], [21] have significant effects on the beta-band (15-30 Hz) CMC, which indicates efficiencies of corticospinal interaction [15] and sensorimotor integration [20]. The low gamma-band CMC (30)(31)(32)(33)(34)(35)(36)(37)(38)(39)(40)(41)(42)(43)(44)(45) is manifested in more complex but predictable motor tasks that require rapid integration of tactile, proprioceptive, visual and cognitive (i.e., prediction and planning) information during isometric force production [23]- [25].…”

mentioning

confidence: 94%

Corticomuscular Coherence Modulation With the Pattern of Finger Force Coordination

Shen

et al. 2013

IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We assess the corticomuscular coherence (CMC) of the contralateral primary motor cortex and the hand muscles during a finger force-tracking task and explore whether the pattern of finger coordination has an impact on the CMC level. Six healthy subjects (three men and three women) were recruited to conduct the force-tracking tasks comprising two finger patterns, i.e., natural combination of index and middle fingers and unnatural combination of index and middle fingers (i.e., simultaneously producing equal force strength in index and middle finger). During the conducting of the tasks with right index and middle finger, MEG and sEMG signals were recorded from left primary motor cortex (M1) and right flexor digitorum superficialis (FDS), respectively; the contralateral CMC was calculated to assess the neuromuscular interaction. Finger force-tracking tasks of Common-IM only induce beta-band CMC, whereas Uncommon-IM tasks produce CMC in both beta and low-gamma band. Compared to the force-tracking tasks of Common-IM, the Uncommon-IM task is associated with the most intensive contralateral CMC. Our study demonstrated that the pattern of finger coordination had significant impact on the CMC between the contralateral M1 and hand muscles, and more corticomuscular interaction was necessary for unnaturally coordinated finger activities to regulate the fixed neural drive of hand muscles.

show abstract

“…Note, that for recalculated filters patterns correspond to CMC at peak frequency. and keeping the target force level -factors which were shown to modulate CMC strength (Kristeva-Feige et al, 2002;Safri et al, 2006Safri et al, , 2007. Besides the self-report of subjects, also a higher CV of force could be an indication that the neurofeedback condition was more demanding.…”

Section: Addressing Confounding Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Besides movement-dependent modulation, CMC strength was shown to be affected by motorunrelated, cognitive processes, including cognitive effort, attention and anticipation. Safri et al (2006Safri et al ( , 2007 demonstrated that when cognitive effort was required to http ignore a visual distractor, CMC strength increased. In contrast, divided attention because of a secondary task led to decreased CMC strength (Kristeva-Feige et al, 2002;Safri et al, 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%