Literature DB >> 23761893

Dynamic and opposing adjustment of movement cancellation and generation in an oculomotor countermanding task.

Brian D Corneil1, Joshua C Cheng, Samanthi C Goonetilleke.   

Abstract

Adaptive adjustments of strategies help optimize behavior in a dynamic and uncertain world. Previous studies in the countermanding (or stop-signal) paradigm have detailed how reaction times (RTs) change with trial sequence, demonstrating adaptive control of movement generation. Comparatively little is known about the adaptive control of movement cancellation in the countermanding task, mainly because movement cancellation implies the absence of an outcome and estimates of movement cancellation require hundreds of trials. Here, we exploit a within-trial proxy of movement cancellation based on recordings of neck muscle activity while human subjects attempted to cancel large eye-head gaze shifts. On a subset of successfully cancelled trials where gaze remains stable, small head-only movements to the target are actively braked by a pulse of antagonist neck muscle activity. The timing of such antagonist muscle recruitment relative to the stop signal, termed the "antagonist latency," tended to decrease or increase after trials with or without a stop-signal, respectively. Over multiple time scales, fluctuations in the antagonist latency tended to be the mirror opposite of those occurring contemporaneously with RTs. These results provide new insights into the adaptive control of movement cancellation at an unprecedented resolution, suggesting it can be as prone to dynamic adjustment as movement generation. Adaptive control in the countermanding task appears to be governed by a dynamic balance between movement cancellation and generation: shifting the balance in favor of movement cancellation slows movement generation, whereas shifting the balance in favor of movement generation slows movement cancellation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23761893      PMCID: PMC6618397          DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2543-12.2013

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurosci        ISSN: 0270-6474            Impact factor:   6.167


  7 in total

Review 1.  Models of inhibitory control.

Authors:  Jeffrey D Schall; Thomas J Palmeri; Gordon D Logan
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2017-04-19       Impact factor: 6.237

2.  Eye Position Error Influence over "Open-Loop" Smooth Pursuit Initiation.

Authors:  Antimo Buonocore; Julianne Skinner; Ziad M Hafed
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2019-02-01       Impact factor: 6.167

3.  Evidence for spatial tuning of movement inhibition.

Authors:  Nicolas Wattiez; Tymothée Poitou; Sophie Rivaud-Péchoux; Pierre Pouget
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2016-02-29       Impact factor: 1.972

Review 4.  Partial response electromyography as a marker of action stopping.

Authors:  Liisa Raud; Christina Thunberg; René J Huster
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2022-05-26       Impact factor: 8.713

5.  Temporal cascade of frontal, motor and muscle processes underlying human action-stopping.

Authors:  Sumitash Jana; Ricci Hannah; Vignesh Muralidharan; Adam R Aron
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2020-03-18       Impact factor: 8.140

6.  Active Braking of Whole-Arm Reaching Movements Provides Single-Trial Neuromuscular Measures of Movement Cancellation.

Authors:  Jeroen Atsma; Femke Maij; Chao Gu; W Pieter Medendorp; Brian D Corneil
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2018-04-10       Impact factor: 6.167

7.  Stopping eyes and hands: evidence for non-independence of stop and go processes and for a separation of central and peripheral inhibition.

Authors:  Alessandro Gulberti; Petra A Arndt; Hans Colonius
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2014-02-18       Impact factor: 3.169

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.