OBJECTIVE: We sought to investigate the activity of bilateral parietal and premotor areas during a Go/No Go paradigm involving praxis movements of the dominant hand. METHODS: A sentence was presented which instructed subjects on what movement to make (S1; for example, "Show me how to use a hammer."). After an 8-s delay, "Go" or "No Go" (S2) was presented. If Go, they were instructed to make the movement described in the S1 instruction sentence as quickly as possible, and continuously until the "Rest" cue was presented 3 s later. If No Go, subjects were to simply relax until the next instruction sentence. Event-related potentials (ERP) and event-related desynchronization (ERD) in the beta band (18-22 Hz) were evaluated for three time bins: after S1, after S2, and from -2.5 to -1.5 s before the S2 period. RESULTS: Bilateral premotor ERP was greater than bilateral parietal ERP after the S2 Go compared with the No Go. Additionally, left premotor ERP was greater than that from the right premotor area. There was predominant left parietal ERD immediately after S1 for both Go and No Go, which was sustained for the duration of the interval between S1 and S2. For both S2 stimuli, predominant left parietal ERD was again seen when compared to that from the left premotor or right parietal area. However, the left parietal ERD was greater for Go than No Go. CONCLUSION: The results suggest a dominant role in the left parietal cortex for planning, executing, and suppressing praxis movements. The ERP and ERD show different patterns of activation and may reflect distinct neural movement-related activities. SIGNIFICANCE: The data can guide further studies to determine the neurophysiological changes occurring in apraxia patients and help explain the unique error profiles seen in patients with left parietal damage.
OBJECTIVE: We sought to investigate the activity of bilateral parietal and premotor areas during a Go/No Go paradigm involving praxis movements of the dominant hand. METHODS: A sentence was presented which instructed subjects on what movement to make (S1; for example, "Show me how to use a hammer."). After an 8-s delay, "Go" or "No Go" (S2) was presented. If Go, they were instructed to make the movement described in the S1 instruction sentence as quickly as possible, and continuously until the "Rest" cue was presented 3 s later. If No Go, subjects were to simply relax until the next instruction sentence. Event-related potentials (ERP) and event-related desynchronization (ERD) in the beta band (18-22 Hz) were evaluated for three time bins: after S1, after S2, and from -2.5 to -1.5 s before the S2 period. RESULTS: Bilateral premotor ERP was greater than bilateral parietal ERP after the S2 Go compared with the No Go. Additionally, left premotor ERP was greater than that from the right premotor area. There was predominant left parietal ERD immediately after S1 for both Go and No Go, which was sustained for the duration of the interval between S1 and S2. For both S2 stimuli, predominant left parietal ERD was again seen when compared to that from the left premotor or right parietal area. However, the left parietal ERD was greater for Go than No Go. CONCLUSION: The results suggest a dominant role in the left parietal cortex for planning, executing, and suppressing praxis movements. The ERP and ERD show different patterns of activation and may reflect distinct neural movement-related activities. SIGNIFICANCE: The data can guide further studies to determine the neurophysiological changes occurring in apraxiapatients and help explain the unique error profiles seen in patients with left parietal damage.
Authors: Y Burnod; P Baraduc; A Battaglia-Mayer; E Guigon; E Koechlin; S Ferraina; F Lacquaniti; R Caminiti Journal: Exp Brain Res Date: 1999-12 Impact factor: 1.972
Authors: B Hanna-Pladdy; S K Daniels; M A Fieselman; K Thompson; J J Vasterling; K M Heilman; A L Foundas Journal: Cortex Date: 2001-04 Impact factor: 4.027
Authors: K Rubia; T Russell; S Overmeyer; M J Brammer; E T Bullmore; T Sharma; A Simmons; S C Williams; V Giampietro; C M Andrew; E Taylor Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2001-02 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Silvia A Bunge; Nicole M Dudukovic; Moriah E Thomason; Chandan J Vaidya; John D E Gabrieli Journal: Neuron Date: 2002-01-17 Impact factor: 17.173
Authors: Chi-Chao Chao; Anke Ninija Karabanov; Rainer Paine; Ana Carolina de Campos; Sahana N Kukke; Tianxia Wu; Han Wang; Mark Hallett Journal: Cereb Cortex Date: 2013-08-22 Impact factor: 5.357
Authors: Joshua B Ewen; Balaji M Lakshmanan; Mark Hallett; Stewart H Mostofsky; Nathan E Crone; Anna Korzeniewska Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2014-09-18 Impact factor: 3.708
Authors: Tzvetan Popov; Britta U Westner; Rebecca L Silton; Sarah M Sass; Jeffrey M Spielberg; Brigitte Rockstroh; Wendy Heller; Gregory A Miller Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2018-04-10 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: William F Cusack; Michael Cope; Sheryl Nathanson; Nikta Pirouz; Robert Kistenberg; Lewis A Wheaton Journal: Front Hum Neurosci Date: 2012-06-29 Impact factor: 3.169