Proprioceptive feedback during point-to-point arm movements is tuned to the expected dynamics of the task

Heavier Load Alters Upper Limb Muscle Synergy with Correlated fNIRS Responses in BA4 and BA6

In neurorehabilitation, motor performances may improve if patients could accomplish the training by overcoming mechanical loads. When the load inertia is increased, it has been found to trigger linear responses in motor-related cortices. The cortical responses, however, are unclear whether they also correlate to changes in muscular patterns. Therefore, it remains difficult to justify the magnitude of load during rehabilitation because of the gap between cortical and muscular activation. Here, we test the hypothesis that increases in load inertia may alter the muscle synergies, and the change in synergy may correlate with cortical activation. Twelve healthy subjects participated in the study. Each subject lifted dumbbells (either 0, 3, or 15 pounds) from the resting position to the armpit repetitively at 1 Hz. Surface electromyographic signals were collected from 8 muscles around the shoulder and the elbow, and hemodynamic signals were collected using functional near-infrared spectroscopy from motor-related regions Brodmann Area 4 (BA4) and BA6. Results showed that, given higher inertia, the synergy vectors differed farther from the baseline. Moreover, synergy similarity on the vector decreased linearly with cortical responses in BA4 and BA6, which associated with increases in inertia. Despite studies in literature that movements with similar kinematics tend not to differ in synergy vectors, we show a different possibility that the synergy vectors may deviate from a baseline. At least 2 consequences of adding inertia have been identified: to decrease synergy similarity and to increase motor cortical activity. The dual effects potentially provide a new benchmark for therapeutic goal setting.

Increased Inertia Triggers Linear Responses in Motor Cortices during Large-Extent Movements-A fNIRS Study

Activities of daily living consist of accurate, coordinated movements, which require the upper limbs to constantly interact with environmental loads. The magnitude of the load was shown to affect kinematic outcomes in healthy subjects. Moreover, the increase in load facilitates the recovery of motor function in patients with neurological disorders. Although Brodmann Areas 4 and 6 were found to be active during loaded movements, it remains unclear whether stronger activation can be triggered simply by increasing the load magnitude. If such a linear relationship exists, it may provide a basis for the closed-loop adjustment of treatment plans in neurorehabilitation. Fourteen healthy participants were instructed to lift their hands to their armpits. The movements were grouped in blocks of 25 s. Each block was assigned a magnitude of inertial loads, either 0 pounds (bare hand), 3 pounds, or 15 pounds. Hemodynamic fNIRS signals were recorded throughout the experiment. Both channel-wise and ROI-wise analyses found significant activations against all three magnitudes of inertia. The generalized linear model revealed significant increases in the beta coefficient of 0.001673/pound in BA4 and 0.001338/pound in BA6. The linear trend was stronger in BA6 (conditional r2 = 0.9218) than in BA4 (conditional r2 = 0.8323).

There and back again: putting the vectorial movement planning hypothesis to a critical test

Based on psychophysical evidence about how learning of visuomotor transformation generalizes, it has been suggested that movements are planned on the basis of movement direction and magnitude, i.e., the vector connecting movement origin and targets. This notion is also known under the term “vectorial planning hypothesis”. Previous psychophysical studies, however, have included separate areas of the workspace for training movements and testing the learning. This study eliminates this confounding factor by investigating the transfer of learning from forward to backward movements in a center-out-and-back task, in which the workspace for both movements is completely identical. Visual feedback allowed for learning only during movements towards the target (forward movements) and not while moving back to the origin (backward movements). When subjects learned the visuomotor rotation in forward movements, initial directional errors in backward movements also decreased to some degree. This learning effect in backward movements occurred predominantly when backward movements featured the same movement directions as the ones trained in forward movements (i.e., when opposite targets were presented). This suggests that learning was transferred in a direction specific way, supporting the notion that movement direction is the most prominent parameter used for motor planning.

Conclusions on motor control depend on the type of model used to represent the periphery

Within the field of motor control, there is no consensus on which kinematic and kinetic aspects of movements are planned or controlled. Perturbing goal-directed movements is a frequently used tool to answer this question. To be able to draw conclusions about motor control from kinematic responses to perturbations, a model of the periphery (i.e., the skeleton, muscle-tendon complexes, and spinal reflex circuitry) is required. The purpose of the present study was to determine to what extent such conclusions depend on the level of simplification with which the dynamical properties of the periphery are modeled. For this purpose, we simulated fast goal-directed single-joint movement with four existing types of models. We tested how three types of perturbations affected movement trajectory if motor commands remained unchanged. We found that the four types of models of the periphery showed different robustness to the perturbations, leading to different predictions on how accurate motor commands need to be, i.e., how accurate the knowledge of external conditions needs to be. This means that when interpreting kinematic responses obtained in perturbation experiments the level of error correction attributed to adaptation of motor commands depends on the type of model used to describe the periphery.

Strength training reduces intracortical inhibition

AIM

Paired-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation was used to investigate the influence of 4 weeks of heavy load squat strength training on corticospinal excitability and short-interval intracortical inhibition (rectus femoris muscle).

METHODS

Participants (n = 12) were randomly allocated to a strength training or control group. The strength training group completed 4 weeks of heavy load squat strength training. Recruitment curves were constructed to determine values for the slope of the curve, V50 and peak height. Short-interval intracortical inhibition was assessed using a subthreshold (0.7 × active motor threshold) conditioning stimulus, followed 3 ms later by a supra-threshold (1.2 × active motor threshold) test stimulus. All motor evoked responses were taken during 10% of maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVC) torque and normalized to the maximal M-wave.

RESULTS

The strength training group attained 87% increases in 1RM squat strength (P < 0.01), significant increases in measures of corticospinal excitability (1.2 × Motor threshold: 116%, P = 0.016; peak height of recruitment curve = 105%, P < 0.001), and a 32% reduction in short-interval intracortical inhibition (P < 0.01) following the 4-week intervention compared with control. There were no changes in any dependent variable (P > 0.05) detected in the control group.

CONCLUSION

Repeated high force voluntary muscle activation in the form of short-term strength training reduces short-interval intracortical inhibition. This is consistent with studies involving skilled/complex tasks or novel movement patterns and acute studies investigating acute voluntary contractions.

Suppression of proprioceptive feedback control in movement sequences through intermediate targets

Simple movements can be seen as building blocks for complex action sequences, and neural control of an action sequence can be expected to preserve some control features of its constituent blocks. It was previously found that during single-joint elbow movements to a single target, the proprioceptive feedback control is initially suppressed, and we tested this feedback suppression in a two-segment sequence during which subjects momentarily slowed down at an intermediate target at a 30° distance (first segment) and then immediately moved another 30° to the final target (second segment). Either the first or second segment was unexpectedly perturbed; the latency of the earliest response to the perturbation in the muscle surface electromyogram was analyzed. The perturbations were delivered either at the onset of each segment or about 0.1 s later. We found that in both segments, the response latency to the late perturbation was shorter than the latency to the early perturbation, which suggests that the proprioceptive feedback control is suppressed in the beginning of each segment. Next, we determined the latency of the response to unexpected perturbations in 30° movements to a single target. We found that the response latency was not significantly different in the movement to a single target and in each segment in the sequence. This result suggests that the initial suppression of the proprioceptive feedback control in movements to single targets is preserved in movements through intermediate targets and supports the idea of modular organization of neural control of movement sequences.

Temporal Shift From Velocity to Position Proprioceptive Feedback Control During Reaching Movements

Reaching movements to a target usually have stereotypical kinematics. Although this suggests that the desired kinematics of a movement might be planned, does it also mean that deviations from the planned kinematics are corrected by proprioceptive feedback control? To answer this question, we designed a task in which the subjects made center-forward movements to a target while holding the handle of a robot. Subjects were instructed to make movements at a peak velocity of 1 m/s. No further instructions were given with respect to the movement trajectory or the velocity time profile. In randomly chosen trials the robot imposed servo-controlled deviations from the previously computed unperturbed velocity and position time profiles. The duration of the velocity deviations and the magnitude of accumulated position deviations were manipulated. The subjects were instructed to either “Attempt to correct” or “Do not correct” the movement. The responses to the imposed deviations in the surface electromyograms in the elbow and shoulder agonist muscles consisted of an initial burst followed by a sharp decrease in the “Do not correct” condition or by sustained activity in the “Attempt to correct” condition. The timing and magnitude of the initial response burst reflected those of the velocity deviations and were not affected by the instruction. The timing and magnitude of the late response activity reflected position feedback control and were strongly affected by the instruction. We suggest that proprioceptive feedback control is suppressed in the beginning of the movement, then velocity feedback control is activated in the middle of the movement to control a desired velocity, whereas position feedback control is facilitated late in the movement to acquire the final position.

EMG responses to unexpected perturbations are delayed in slower movements

It has previously been found that in fast point-to-point arm movements, proprioceptive feedback is centrally suppressed at the beginning of movement and is facilitated at a time that is correlated with temporal parameters of the planned movement. Here, we show that this correlation holds when subjects are explicitly instructed to move at less than maximal speed. We studied elbow flexion movements made at maximal speed and at 70% of maximal speed over a short distance against a light inertial load and over a long distance against a heavy inertial load. A small number of trials were unexpectedly perturbed by using a servo-controlled motor to decrease the movement velocity. The servo control was turned on early in the movement. The main novel finding is that responses in the surface EMG in the elbow muscles to the perturbation occurred later in the slow-speed conditions than fast-speed conditions. When viewed across all conditions, the onset of the EMG responses to the perturbation increased with the time to peak acceleration in unperturbed movements. In the inertial loaded movements, the time of peak acceleration coincides with the time of peak inertial torque, and so the observed correlation can be interpreted as reflecting the relation between either the planned movement kinematics or the planned movement dynamics. These results are compatible with a hypothesis that a descending command suppresses the proprioceptive feedback control at the movement onset and facilitates it at a time that depends on the time parameters of the planned movement.