Fractionation of muscle activity in rapid responses to startling cues

Dean, Lauren; Baker, Stuart N.

doi:10.1152/jn.01009.2015

Cited by 30 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Indeed, the patterns of cortical movement-related activity in the quasi-automatic context were 616 very similar to those in the other two contexts. As in 45 , we do not suggest an absence of sub-cortical 617 involvement, merely a conservation of cortical involvement. 618…”

Section: Cortical Involvement Despite Fast Rts 599contrasting

confidence: 74%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Conservation of preparatory neural events regardless of how movement is initiated

Lara

Elsayed

Cunningham

et al. 2017

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Voluntary movement is believed to be preceded by a preparatory stage. Evidence arises from experiments where a delay separates instruction and execution cues. While this sequence emulates some real-world situations (e.g., swatting a fly upon landing) movements are commonly made at a moment of one's choosing (reaching for a coffee cup) or are made reactively (intercepting a falling cup). To ascertain whether neural events are conserved across such contexts, we examined motor cortex population-level responses in monkeys when reaches were initiated either after an imposed delay, at a self-chosen time, or reactively with very low latency. We found that the same preparatory and movement-related events were conserved. However, preparation was temporally flexible and could be remarkably brief. Our findings support the existing hypothesis that preparation is an obligatory stage that achieves a consistent state prior to movement. Yet our results reveal that preparation can unfold more rapidly than previously supposed.

show abstract

Section: Cortical Involvement Despite Fast Rts 599contrasting

confidence: 74%

“…Yet a recent study argued against a reduction of cortical involvement in StartReact 45 . The authors instead 607…”

Section: Cortical Involvement Despite Fast Rts 599mentioning

confidence: 99%

Conservation of preparatory neural events regardless of how movement is initiated

Lara

Elsayed

Cunningham

et al. 2017

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore, separating trials by their latencies is likely to be more indicative of a mechanism that bypasses or activates specific mechanisms in the central nervous system than relying on surface EMG (see also [37]. To decide which percentiles would be representative of values obtained when using SCM to separate trials (SCM+ and SCM-), we fitted a CDF to data kindly provided by Honeycutt As shown in Figure 6A, this main effect was qualified by a significant interaction between IS predictability and IS timing (F (2,253) = 18.66, p < .0001, LR = 24.36), suggesting the effect of IS timing was stronger in the unpredictable block of trials.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Triggering mechanisms for motor actions: A mini meta-analysis and experimental data

Leow¹,

Uchida²,

Egberts³

et al. 2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Motor actions can be released much sooner than normal when the go-signal is of very high intensity (> 100dBa). Although statistical evidence from individual studies has been mixed, it has been assumed that sternocleidomastoid (SCM) muscle activity could be used to distinguish between two neural circuits involved in movement triggering. We summarized meta-analytically the available evidence for this hypothesis, comparing the difference in premotor reaction time (RT) of actions where SCM activity was elicited (SCM+ trials) by loud acoustic stimuli against trials in which it was absent (SCM-trials). We found ten studies, all reporting comparisons between SCM+ and SCM-trials. Our mini meta-analysis showed that premotor RTs are faster in SCM+ than in SCM-trials. We also present experimental data showing the effects of foreperiod predictability can induce differences in RT that would be of similar size to those attributed to the activation of different neurophysiological pathways to trigger prepared actions. We discuss plausible physiological mechanisms that would explain differences in premotor RTs between SCM+ and SCM-trials.

show abstract

“…As an alternative view to this triggering through subcortical areas, the shortening of RT seen in the StartReact effect may be a product of an enhancement of voluntary motor pathways via an engagement of a more widespread cortical-subcortical network when an intense sensory stimulus is presented (see Marinovic & Tresilian, 2016). The difficulties in determining neurophysiological mechanisms underlying the early triggering of motor responses using the presence or absence of SCM activity has been outlined previously (Dean & Baker, 2017;Leow et al, 2018;Marinovic & Tresilian, 2016;McInnes, Corti, Tresilian, Lipp, & Marinovic, 2020) and it seems SCM activity can be an unreliable indicator of distinct mechanisms that can be activated by intense sensory stimuli. Rather, determination of the presence of a specific StartReact mechanism may be more feasible when trials are separated based on their response latency (Leow et al, 2018;McInnes et al, 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Cumulative distribution functions: An alternative approach to examine the triggering of prepared motor actions in the StartReact effect

McInnes¹,

Castellote

Kofler

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There has been much debate concerning whether startling sensory stimuli can activate a fastneural pathway for movement triggering (StartReact) which is different from that of voluntary movements. Activity in sternocleidomastoid (SCM) electromyogram is suggested to indicate activation of this pathway. We evaluated whether SCM activity can accurately identify trials which may differ in their neurophysiological triggering and assessed the use of cumulative distribution functions (CDFs) of reaction time (RT) data to identify trials with the shortest RTs for analysis. Using recent datasets from the StartReact literature, we examined the relationship between RT and SCM activity. We categorised data into short/longer RT bins using CDFs and used linear mixed effects models to compare potential conclusions that can be drawn when categorising data on the basis of RT versus on the basis of SCM activity. The capacity of SCM to predict RT is task-specific, making it an unreliable indicator of distinct neurophysiological mechanisms. Classification of trials using CDFs is capable of capturing potential task-or musclerelated differences in triggering whilst avoiding the pitfalls of the traditional SCM activity based classification method. We conclude that SCM activity is not always evident on trials that show the early triggering of movements seen in the StartReact phenomenon. We further propose that a more comprehensive analysis of data may be achieved through the inclusion of CDF analyses. These findings have implications for future research investigating movement triggering as well as for potential therapeutic applications of StartReact.

show abstract

Fractionation of muscle activity in rapid responses to startling cues

Cited by 30 publications

References 36 publications

Conservation of preparatory neural events regardless of how movement is initiated

Conservation of preparatory neural events regardless of how movement is initiated

Triggering mechanisms for motor actions: A mini meta-analysis and experimental data

Cumulative distribution functions: An alternative approach to examine the triggering of prepared motor actions in the StartReact effect

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About