Corticospinal excitability is reduced in a simple reaction time task requiring complex timing

Acute non invasive brain stimulation improves performances in volleyball players

OBJECTIVES

The ability to redirect one's attention in response to various environmental situations is a crucial aspect of selective attention in team sports. Thus, the aim of this study was to investigate whether repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in volleyball players can improve Posner test response and cortical excitability. This study had a double-blinded (participant and evaluator) matched-pair experimental design.

METHODS

Twenty right-handed female volleyball players were recruited for the study and randomly assigned to either the active rTMS group (n = 10) or the sham stimulation group (n = 10). The stimulation was performed in one session with 10 Hz, 80% of the resting motor threshold (RMT), 5 s of stimulation, and 15 s of rest, for a total of 1,500 pulses. Before and after stimulation, the Posner test and cortical excitability were evaluated.

RESULTS

The significant finding of this paper was that 10 Hz rTMS to the DLPFC seemed to improve Posner test response, and also resulted in a significantly decreased RMT and MEP latency of the ipsilateral motor cortex. After stimulation, the active group showed a significant decrease in the percentage of errors in the Posner test. Moreover, active group showed faster RT after rTMS, suggesting that HF stimulation could enhance performance. Additionally, significant differences in RMT emerged in the active rTMS group after stimulation, while no differences were observed in MEP latency and MEP amplitude.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, we believe that these results may be of great interest to the scientific community and could have practical implications in the future.

Increased auditory stimulus intensity results in an earlier and faster rise in corticospinal excitability

Increasing the intensity of auditory stimuli has been shown to produce faster simple reaction times (RTs). Typical explanations for this effect involve earlier detection of the more intense stimulus; however, these explanations fail to consider how stimulus intensity may impact response initiation processing. To investigate the mechanism responsible for the auditory stimulus intensity effect, transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) was applied at various times during the simple RT interval (equivalent to 0, 30, 45, 60, and 75% of baseline RT) to examine changes in corticospinal excitability after a go-signal of varying intensity (60, 70, 80, or 90 dB). Premotor RT data confirmed a stimulus intensity effect whereby the 90 dB stimulus resulted in faster RTs than all other intensities. Analysis of motor evoked potential (MEP) amplitude elicited by TMS across stimulus intensity conditions revealed that in the 80 dB and 90 dB conditions, corticospinal excitability began to increase earlier from baseline (pre-stimulus) levels, supporting the detection hypothesis. In addition, MEP amplitude increased at a greater rate during the RT interval for the 90 dB condition, indicative of impacts on response initiation. These results indicate that stimulus intensity effects result from a combination of earlier detection and faster initiation.

StartReact effects are dependent on engagement of startle reflex circuits: support for a subcortically mediated initiation pathway

The "StartReact" effect refers to the rapid involuntary triggering of a prepared movement in response to a loud startling acoustic stimulus (SAS). This effect is typically confirmed by the presence of short-latency electromyographic activity in startle reflex-related muscles such as the sternocleidomastoid (SCM); however, there is debate regarding the specific neural pathways involved in the StartReact effect. Some research has implicated a subcortically mediated pathway, which would predict different response latencies depending on the presence of a startle reflex. Alternatively, other research has suggested that this effect involves the same pathways responsible for voluntary response initiation and simply reflects higher preparatory activation levels, and thus faster voluntary initiation. To distinguish between these competing hypotheses, the present study assessed preparation level during a simple reaction time (RT) task involving wrist extension in response to a control tone or a SAS. Premotor RT and startle circuitry engagement (as measured by SCM activation) were determined for each trial. Additionally, preparation level at the go signal on each trial was measured using motor-evoked potentials (MEP) elicited by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). Results showed that SAS trial RTs were significantly shorter (P = 0.009) in the presence of startle-related SCM activity. Nevertheless, preparation levels (as indexed by MEP amplitude) were statistically equivalent between trials with and without SCM activation. These results indicate that the StartReact effect relates to engagement of the startle reflex circuitry rather than simply being a result of an increased level of preparatory activation.NEW & NOTEWORTHY The neural mechanism underlying the early triggering of goal-directed actions by a startling acoustic stimulus (SAS) is unclear. We show that although significant reaction time differences were evident depending on whether the SAS elicited a startle reflex, motor preparatory activation was the same. Thus, in a highly prepared state, the short-latency responses associated with the StartReact effect appear to be related to engagement of startle reflex circuitry, not differences in motor preparatory level.

The Time Course of Motoneuronal Excitability during the Preparation of Complex Movements

For a simple RT task, movement complexity increases RT and also corticospinal excitability, as measured by the motor evoked potential (MEP) elicited by TMS of the motor cortex. However, it is unknown if complexity-related increases in corticospinal excitability during the preparation of movement are mediated at the cortical or spinal level. The purposes of this study were to establish a time course of motoneuronal excitability before prime mover activation and to assess task-dependent effects of complex movements on motoneuronal and cortical excitability in a simple RT paradigm. It was hypothesized that motoneuronal and cortical excitability would increase before prime mover activation and in response to movement complexity. In a seated position, participants completed ballistic elbow extension/flexion movements with their dominant arm to one, two, or three targets. TMS and transmastoid stimulation (TS) were delivered at 0%, 70%, 80% or 90% of mean premotor RT for each complexity level. Stimulus intensities were set to elicit MEPs and cervicomedullary MEPs (CMEPs) of ∼10% of the maximal M-wave in the triceps brachii. Compared with 0% RT, motoneuronal excitability (CMEP amplitude) was already 10% greater at 70% RT. CMEP amplitude also increased with movement complexity as both the two- and three-movement conditions had greater motoneuronal excitability than the one-movement condition (p < .038). Importantly, when normalized to the CMEP, there was no increase in MEP amplitude. This suggests that complexity-related increases in corticospinal excitability are likely to be mediated more by increased excitability at a motoneuronal than cortical level.

Investigation of timing preparation during response initiation and execution using a startling acoustic stimulus

The purpose of the current study was to examine the processes involved in the preparation of timing during response initiation and execution through the use of a startling acoustic stimulus (SAS). In Experiment 1, participants performed a delayed response task in which a two key-press movement was to be initiated 200 ms after an imperative signal (IS) with either a short (200 ms) or long (500 ms) interval between key-presses. On selected trials, a SAS was presented to probe the preparation processes associated with the initiation delay and execution of the inter-key interval. The SAS resulted in a significant decrease in the initiation time, which was attributed to a speeding of pacemaker pulses used to time the delay interval, caused by an increased activation due to the SAS. Conversely, the SAS delayed the short inter-key interval, which was attributed to temporary interference with cortical processing. In Experiment 2, participants performed a 500-ms delayed response task involving two key-presses 200 ms apart. In this condition, the SAS resulted in significantly decreased initiation time and a delayed inter-key interval (p = .053). Collectively, these results support a different timeline for the preparation of the delay interval, which is thought to be prepared in advance of the IS, and the inter-key interval, which is thought to be prepared following the IS. This conclusion provides novel information with regard to timing preparation that is consistent with models in which response preparation, initiation, and execution are considered separate and dissociable processes.