Neuromagnetic activation following active and passive finger movements

Onishi, Hideaki; Sugawara, Kazuhiro; Yamashiro, Koya; Sato, Daisuke; Suzuki, Makoto; Kirimoto, Hikari; Tamaki, Hiroyuki; Murakami, Hiroatsu; Kameyama, Shigeki

doi:10.1002/brb3.126

Cited by 54 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 81 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Additionally, several studies reported that muscle afferent inputs also reach M1 (Lucier et al, 1975; Zarzecki et al, 1978). Multiple cortical imaging techniques, including magnetoencephalography, functional MRI and positron emission tomography, have shown that electrical stimulation without muscle contraction and mechanical tactile stimulation to the index finger predominantly activates S1 (Xiang et al, 1997; Terumitsu et al, 2009), whereas motor-point stimulation with contraction of the extensor indicis muscle or passive finger movement activates both M1 and S1 (Weiller et al, 1996; Xiang et al, 1997; Nelles et al, 1999; Radovanovic et al, 2002; Terumitsu et al, 2009; Onishi et al, 2011, 2013). These results provide evidence that different brain regions are activated by mixed nerve stimulation with muscle contraction and sensory nerve stimulation to the index finger without muscle contraction.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Converging evidence suggests that afferent somatosensory inputs such as peripheral nerve electrical stimulation (PES), muscle tendon vibration and active and passive movements can induce changes in primary motor cortex (M1) excitability (Naito et al, 1999, 2002; Ridding et al, 2000; Kaelin-Lang et al, 2002; Macé et al, 2008; Miyaguchi et al, 2013; Onishi et al, 2013; Kotan et al, 2015). Somatosensory inputs play a major role in motor control at the cortical level; this is a critical aspect of sensorimotor integration.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Presence and Absence of Muscle Contraction Elicited by Peripheral Nerve Electrical Stimulation Differentially Modulate Primary Motor Cortex Excitability

Sasaki

Kotan

Nakagawa

et al. 2017

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Modulation of cortical excitability by sensory inputs is a critical component of sensorimotor integration. Sensory afferents, including muscle and joint afferents, to somatosensory cortex (S1) modulate primary motor cortex (M1) excitability, but the effects of muscle and joint afferents specifically activated by muscle contraction are unknown. We compared motor evoked potentials (MEPs) following median nerve stimulation (MNS) above and below the contraction threshold based on the persistence of M-waves. Peripheral nerve electrical stimulation (PES) conditions, including right MNS at the wrist at 110% motor threshold (MT; 110% MNS condition), right MNS at the index finger (sensory digit nerve stimulation [DNS]) with stimulus intensity approximately 110% MNS (DNS condition), and right MNS at the wrist at 90% MT (90% MNS condition) were applied. PES was administered in a 4 s ON and 6 s OFF cycle for 20 min at 30 Hz. In Experiment 1 (n = 15), MEPs were recorded from the right abductor pollicis brevis (APB) before (baseline) and after PES. In Experiment 2 (n = 15), M- and F-waves were recorded from the right APB. Stimulation at 110% MNS at the wrist evoking muscle contraction increased MEP amplitudes after PES compared with those at baseline, whereas DNS at the index finger and 90% MNS at the wrist not evoking muscle contraction decreased MEP amplitudes after PES. M- and F-waves, which reflect spinal cord or muscular and neuromuscular junctions, did not change following PES. These results suggest that muscle contraction and concomitant muscle/joint afferent inputs specifically enhance M1 excitability.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Presence and Absence of Muscle Contraction Elicited by Peripheral Nerve Electrical Stimulation Differentially Modulate Primary Motor Cortex Excitability

Sasaki

Kotan

Nakagawa

et al. 2017

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…by an investigator moving the subject's finger or hand inside the magnetically shielding room (Druschky et al, 2003;Muthukumaraswamy, 2010;Onishi et al, 2013;Piitulainen et al, 2013a;Woldag et al, 2003;Xiang et al, 1997aXiang et al, , 1997b or by devices relying on a pneumatic cylinder-lever system (Alary et al, 2002;Lange et al, 2001). Pneumatic cylinders can evoke rapid intermittent passive movements, appropriate for example to measurements of passive-movement-evoked fields (pMEFs).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

MEG-compatible pneumatic stimulator to elicit passive finger and toe movements

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Magnetoencephalographic (MEG) signals recorded from the primary sensorimotor (SM1) cortex are coherent with kinematics of both active and passive finger movements. The coherence mainly reflects movement-related proprioceptive afference to the cortex. Here we describe a novel MEG-compatible stimulator to generate computer-controlled passive finger and toe movements that can be used as stimuli in functional brain-imaging experiments. The movements are produced by pneumatic artificial muscle (PAM), elastic actuator that shortens with increasing air pressure. To test the applicability of the stimulator to functional brain-imaging, 4-min trains of passive repetitive 5-mm flexion-extension movements of the right and left index finger and the right hallux were produced at 3Hz while the subject's brain activity was measured with whole-scalp MEG and finger or toe kinematics with an accelerometer. In all ten subjects studied, statistically significant coherence (up to 0.78) occurred between the accelerometer and MEG signals at the movement frequency or its first harmonic. Sources of coherent activity were in the contralateral hand or foot SM1 cortices. Movement-evoked fields elicited with intermittent movements of the right index finger (once every 3.2-4.0s; mean±SD peak response latency 88±25ms) were co-located with the respective coherent sources. We further moved the right index finger at 3, 6, and 12Hz (movement ranges 5, 3, and 2mm, respectively), and analyzed the first 1, 2, and 4-min epochs of data. One minute of data was sufficient to locate the left hand area of the SM1 cortex at all movement frequencies. Sound-induced spurious coherence was reliably ruled out in a control experiment. Our novel movement stimulator thus provides a robust and reliable tool to track proprioceptive afference to the cortex and to locate the SM1 cortex.

show abstract

“…In the current study, passive finger movements elicited prominent responses in the contralateral sensorimotor cortex in accordance with earlier findings (Xiang et al ., ; Lange et al ., ; Alary et al ., ; Druschky et al ., ; Woldag et al ., ; Onishi et al ., ; Piitulainen et al ., , ). The corresponding cortical sources peaked ~ 70 ms after extension and ~ 90 ms after flexion movements.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of interstimulus interval on cortical proprioceptive responses to passive finger movements

Smeds

Piitulainen

Bourguignon

et al. 2016

Eur J of Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Shortening of the interstimulus interval (ISI) generally leads to attenuation of cortical sensory responses. For proprioception, however, this ISI effect is still poorly known. Our aim was to characterize the ISI dependence of movement-evoked proprioceptive cortical responses and to find the optimum ISI for proprioceptive stimulation. We measured, from 15 healthy adults, magnetoencephalographic responses to passive flexion and extension movements of the right index finger. The movements were generated by a movement actuator at fixed ISIs of 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 8, and 16 s, in separate blocks. The responses peaked at ~70 ms (extension) and ~90 ms (flexion) in the contralateral primary somatosensory cortex. The strength of the cortical source increased with the ISI, plateauing at the 8-s ISI. Modeling the ISI dependence with an exponential saturation function revealed response lifetimes of 1.3 s (extension) and 2.2 s (flexion), implying that the maximum signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) in a given measurement time is achieved with ISIs of 1.7 s and 2.8 s, respectively. We conclude that ISIs of 1.5-3 s should be used to maximize SNR in recordings of proprioceptive cortical responses to passive finger movements. Our findings can benefit the assessment of proprioceptive afference in both clinical and research settings.

show abstract

Neuromagnetic activation following active and passive finger movements

Cited by 54 publications

References 81 publications

Presence and Absence of Muscle Contraction Elicited by Peripheral Nerve Electrical Stimulation Differentially Modulate Primary Motor Cortex Excitability

Presence and Absence of Muscle Contraction Elicited by Peripheral Nerve Electrical Stimulation Differentially Modulate Primary Motor Cortex Excitability

MEG-compatible pneumatic stimulator to elicit passive finger and toe movements

Effect of interstimulus interval on cortical proprioceptive responses to passive finger movements

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About