2016
DOI: 10.1523/jneurosci.3204-15.2016
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Post-Movement Beta Activity in Sensorimotor Cortex Indexes Confidence in the Estimations from Internal Models

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

23
217
2

Year Published

2016
2016
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 213 publications
(242 citation statements)
references
References 55 publications
23
217
2
Order By: Relevance
“…A plausible and parsimonious way to reconcile seemingly disparate findings would be to posit that the internal state variable for timing in motor execution always contributes to the uncertainty in motor execution. This would be consistent with reports of β power in motor execution tasks (Tan et al, 2016), the more specific observations that β power fluctuates according to uncertainty and predictability in motor timing (Meijer et al, 2016;Tzagarakis, et al, 2010) and, more generally, in many explicit motor timing tasks (e.g. Fujioka et al, 2012).…”
Section: β Power As a Signature State Variable For Fojsupporting
confidence: 89%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…A plausible and parsimonious way to reconcile seemingly disparate findings would be to posit that the internal state variable for timing in motor execution always contributes to the uncertainty in motor execution. This would be consistent with reports of β power in motor execution tasks (Tan et al, 2016), the more specific observations that β power fluctuates according to uncertainty and predictability in motor timing (Meijer et al, 2016;Tzagarakis, et al, 2010) and, more generally, in many explicit motor timing tasks (e.g. Fujioka et al, 2012).…”
Section: β Power As a Signature State Variable For Fojsupporting
confidence: 89%
“…However, it is important to add a few more observations, so as to not trivialize the importance of β power as passive motor rebound, notably in light of recent studies indicating active cognitive components encoded in the β rebound (Tan et al, 2016). First, we found no significant impact of simultaneous EMG in the β effect that was indicative of FOJ, providing no evidence for the implication of the strength or afferent feedback confounded with time estimation.…”
Section: β Power a Marker Of State Variable Coding For Timementioning
confidence: 61%
“…Following these erroneous responses, an optimal behavioural strategy would likely involve increasing the decision threshold for subsequent trials to avoid repeating the same mistake. We did not find a significant difference between correct and error trials when examining the post-response beta rebound in the STN, which has previously been implicated in across-trial adaptations (Tan et al, 2014, 2016). Instead, our data suggest that such adaptations may be mediated by other brain regions such as the mPFC, which then may lead to differences within the STN on subsequent trials.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 77%
“…Finally, errors necessarily imply some uncertainty regarding what the predicted outcome of an action was, or will be. Recent evidence has demonstrated that both internally generated and externally induced errors during sensorimotor adaptation tasks result in attenuations of the post-response increases in mPFC beta power, thereby linking these changes in mPFC beta power to this aspect of cognitive control (Tan et al, 2016). …”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Conversely, exaggerated and overly consistent beta synchrony is antikinetic, whether achieved though Parkinson's pathology [Little et al, 2012] or direct stimulation [Pogosyan et al, 2009]. Physiological beta synchrony is promoted in expectation of impending perturbation to a desired posture [Androulidakis et al, 2007] but is also sensitive to the uncertainty of motor outcome estimation [Tan et al, 2016]. Beta oscillations may also contribute to long‐range communication across cortical regions [Engel and Fries, 2010; Kopell et al, 2000] and can facilitate modulation of selective attention in support of action selection [Grent‐'t‐Jong et al, 2013, 2014; Tzagarakis et al, 2010], beyond simple correlation with reaction times [van Ede et al, 2012].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%