Time course of changes in corticospinal excitability induced by motor imagery during action observation combined with peripheral nerve electrical stimulation

Yasui, Takahiro; Yamaguchi, Tomohiko; Tanabe, Shigeo; Tatemoto, Tsuyoshi; Takahashi, Yoko; Kondo, Kunitsugu; Kawakami, Michiyuki

doi:10.1007/s00221-018-5454-5

Cited by 15 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Indeed, for the first time, we showed the existence of a significant and positive correlation between the reported vividness of movement illusion and the excitability changes after the exposure to AO-KI CONGR and AO KI-INCONGR: namely, the higher the illusion experienced by the participants, the higher the increase in M1 excitability after the conditioning protocols. The present findings are in line with those of a very recent study using a different stimulation technique (Yasui et al 2019). Participants were asked to observe a video showing hand movements on a screen that was superimposed on their own hand.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…The present findings are in line with those of a very recent study using a different stimulation technique (Yasui et al . ). Participants were asked to observe a video showing hand movements on a screen that was superimposed on their own hand.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…A further additive effect in terms of changes in the brain's activity would be obtained when combining altogether AO, MI and a peripheral electrical stimulation (Yasui et al . ). Although peripheral electrical stimulation is a promising technique in boosting plasticity effects, little is known about the role played by the different sensory inputs since sensory and motor fibres are activated in an unspecific way.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…In support of the role played by convergent sensory inputs in inducing cortical plasticity, recent studies showed that the combination of another cognitive stimulation technique, namely motor imagery (MI), led to motor cortical plasticity only when associated with peripheral electrical stimulation (Bonassi et al 2017;Corbet et al 2018). A further additive effect in terms of changes in the brain's activity would be obtained when combining altogether AO, MI and a peripheral electrical stimulation (Yasui et al 2019). Although peripheral electrical stimulation is a promising technique in boosting plasticity effects, little is known about the role played by the different sensory inputs since sensory and motor fibres are activated in an unspecific way.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Kinaesthetic illusion shapes the cortical plasticity evoked by action observation

Bisio

Biggio

Avanzino

et al. 2019

The Journal of Physiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Key points The combination of action observation (AO) and a peripheral nerve stimulation has been shown to induce plasticity in the primary motor cortex (M1). However, using peripheral nerve stimulation little is known about the specificity of the sensory inputs. The current study, using muscle tendon vibration to stimulate muscle spindles and transcranial magnetic stimulation to assess M1 excitability, investigated whether a proprioceptive stimulation leading to a kinaesthetic illusion of movement (KI) was able to evoke M1 plasticity when combined with AO. M1 excitability increased immediately and up to 60 min after AO‐KI stimulation as a function of the vividness of the perceived illusion, and only when the movement directions of AO and KI were congruent. Tactile stimulation coupled with AO and KI alone were not sufficient to induce M1 plasticity. This methodology might be proposed to subjects during a period of immobilization to promote M1 activity without requiring any voluntary movement. Abstract Physical practice is crucial to evoke cortical plasticity, but motor cognition techniques, such as action observation (AO), have shown their potentiality in promoting it when associated with peripheral afferent inputs, without the need of performing a movement. Here we investigated whether the combination of AO and a proprioceptive stimulation, able to evoke a kinaesthetic illusion of movement (KI), induced plasticity in the primary motor cortex (M1). In the main experiment, the role of congruency between the observed action and the illusory movement was explored together with the importance of the specificity of the sensory input modality (proprioceptive vs. tactile stimulation) to induce plasticity in M1. Further, a control experiment was carried out to assess the role of the mere kinaesthetic illusion on M1 excitability. Results showed that the combination of AO and KI evoked plasticity in M1, with an increase of the excitability immediately and up to 60 min after the conditioning protocol (P always <0.05). Notably, a significant increase in M1 excitability occurred only when the directions of the observed and illusory movements were congruent. Further, a significant positive linear relationship was found between the amount of M1 excitability increase and the vividness of the perceived illusion (P = 0.03). Finally, the tactile stimulation coupled with AO was not sufficient to induce changes in M1 excitability as well as the KI alone. All these findings indicate the importance of combining different sensory input signals to induce plasticity in M1, and that proprioception is the most suitable sensory modality to allow it.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Kinaesthetic illusion shapes the cortical plasticity evoked by action observation

Bisio

Biggio

Avanzino

et al. 2019

The Journal of Physiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It was shown recently that combined delivery of FES and motor imagery resulted in stronger cortical desynchronization compared to FES alone and motor imagery applied prior to delivery of FES [ 121 ]. When motor imagery was provided by means of watching and imagining actions shown on a pre-recorded video of grasping, while not producing the movements, it was shown that concurrent electrical stimulation facilitated MEP corticospinal excitability and that either motor imagery and electrical stimulation alone did not elicit any effects [ 157 ]. Similar acute effects were shown using combined motor imagery and electrical stimulation of the lower-limbs [ 137 ].…”

Section: Brain-controlled Electrical Stimulation Of Muscles and Nervementioning

confidence: 99%

Why brain-controlled neuroprosthetics matter: mechanisms underlying electrical stimulation of muscles and nerves in rehabilitation

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Delivering short trains of electric pulses to the muscles and nerves can elicit action potentials resulting in muscle contractions. When the stimulations are sequenced to generate functional movements, such as grasping or walking, the application is referred to as functional electrical stimulation (FES). Implications of the motor and sensory recruitment of muscles using FES go beyond simple contraction of muscles. Evidence suggests that FES can induce short- and long-term neurophysiological changes in the central nervous system by varying the stimulation parameters and delivery methods. By taking advantage of this, FES has been used to restore voluntary movement in individuals with neurological injuries with a technique called FES therapy (FEST). However, long-lasting cortical re-organization (neuroplasticity) depends on the ability to synchronize the descending (voluntary) commands and the successful execution of the intended task using a FES. Brain-computer interface (BCI) technologies offer a way to synchronize cortical commands and movements generated by FES, which can be advantageous for inducing neuroplasticity. Therefore, the aim of this review paper is to discuss the neurophysiological mechanisms of electrical stimulation of muscles and nerves and how BCI-controlled FES can be used in rehabilitation to improve motor function.

show abstract

The acute effects of action observation on muscle strength/weakness and corticospinal excitability in older adults

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Muscle weakness is a critical problem facing many older adults. Interventions targeting nervous system plasticity may show promise in enhancing strength. The purpose of this study was to examine the acute effects of action observation on muscular strength characteristics and corticospinal excitability in older adults. Isometric wrist flexion strength characteristics and corticospinal excitability of the first dorsal interosseous (FDI) were measured in 14 older adults (mean age = 73 years) in response to observation of (1) STRONG contractions of the hand/wrist, (2) WEAK contractions of the hand/wrist, and (3) a CONTROL condition. Results from repeated measures analyses of variance (ANOVAs) indicated that rate of torque development at 200 ms (RTD200) significantly decreased from PRE to POST observation for CONTROL and WEAK, but not STRONG. No other ANOVAs were significant. However, effect sizes indicated that maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) peak torque showed moderate declines following WEAK ( d = − 0.571) and CONTROL ( d = − 0.636), but not STRONG ( d = 0.024). Similarly, rate of torque development at 30 (RTD30), 50 (RTD50), and 200 (RTD200) ms showed large declines from PRE to POST after WEAK and CONTROL, but small changes following STRONG. FDI motor-evoked potential (MEP) amplitude tended to increase over time, but these results were variable. There was a pronounced effect from PRE to 8MIN ( d = 0.954) during all conditions. Action observation of strong contractions may exert a preservatory effect on muscular strength. More work is needed to determine whether this is modulated by increased corticospinal excitability. The study was prospectively registered (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03946709).

show abstract

Time course of changes in corticospinal excitability induced by motor imagery during action observation combined with peripheral nerve electrical stimulation

Cited by 15 publications

References 51 publications

Kinaesthetic illusion shapes the cortical plasticity evoked by action observation

Kinaesthetic illusion shapes the cortical plasticity evoked by action observation

Why brain-controlled neuroprosthetics matter: mechanisms underlying electrical stimulation of muscles and nerves in rehabilitation

The acute effects of action observation on muscle strength/weakness and corticospinal excitability in older adults

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About