Literature DB >> 26458519

Comparison of the two cerebral hemispheres in inhibitory processes operative during movement preparation.

Pierre-Alexandre Klein1, Julie Duque2, Ludovica Labruna3, Richard B Ivry3.   

Abstract

Neuroimaging and neuropsychological studies suggest that in right-handed individuals, the left hemisphere plays a dominant role in praxis, relative to the right hemisphere. However hemispheric asymmetries assessed with transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) has not shown consistent differences in corticospinal (CS) excitability of the two hemispheres during movements. In the current study, we systematically explored hemispheric asymmetries in inhibitory processes that are manifest during movement preparation and initiation. Single-pulse TMS was applied over the left or right primary motor cortex (M1LEFT and M1RIGHT, respectively) to elicit motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) in the contralateral hand while participants performed a two-choice reaction time task requiring a cued movement of the left or right index finger. In Experiments 1 and 2, TMS probes were obtained during a delay period following the presentation of the preparatory cue that provided partial or full information about the required response. MEPs were suppressed relative to baseline regardless of whether they were elicited in a cued or uncued hand. Importantly, the magnitude of these inhibitory changes in CS excitability was similar when TMS was applied over M1LEFT or M1RIGHT, irrespective of the amount of information carried by the preparatory cue. In Experiment 3, there was no preparatory cue and TMS was applied at various time points after the imperative signal. When CS excitability was probed in the cued effector, MEPs were initially inhibited and then rose across the reaction time interval. This function was similar for M1LEFT and M1RIGHT TMS. When CS excitability was probed in the uncued effector, MEPs remained inhibited throughout the RT interval. However, MEPs in right FDI became more inhibited during selection and initiation of a left hand movement, whereas MEPs in left FDI remained relatively invariant across RT interval for the right hand. In addition to these task-specific effects, there was a global difference in CS excitability across experiments between the two hemispheres. When the intensity of stimulation was set to 115% of the resting threshold, MEPs were larger when the TMS probe was applied over the M1LEFT than over M1RIGHT. In summary, while the latter result suggests that M1LEFT is more excitable than M1RIGHT, the recruitment of preparatory inhibitory mechanisms is similar within the two cerebral hemispheres.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Competition; Corticospinal excitability; Decision making; Hemisphere; Inhibition; Intermanual; Response selection; Transcranial magnetic stimulation

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26458519      PMCID: PMC4699690          DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.10.007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neuroimage        ISSN: 1053-8119            Impact factor:   6.556


  63 in total

1.  The linguistic basis of left hemisphere specialization.

Authors:  D P Corina; J Vaid; U Bellugi
Journal:  Science       Date:  1992-03-06       Impact factor: 47.728

2.  Response competition in the primary motor cortex: corticospinal excitability reflects response replacement during simple decisions.

Authors:  Thomas Michelet; Gary H Duncan; Paul Cisek
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2010-05-05       Impact factor: 2.714

3.  Role of corticospinal suppression during motor preparation.

Authors:  Julie Duque; Richard B Ivry
Journal:  Cereb Cortex       Date:  2009-01-06       Impact factor: 5.357

4.  Interhemispheric differences of hand muscle representation in human motor cortex.

Authors:  P Cicinelli; R Traversa; A Bassi; G Scivoletto; P M Rossini
Journal:  Muscle Nerve       Date:  1997-05       Impact factor: 3.217

5.  Influence of reward on corticospinal excitability during movement preparation.

Authors:  Pierre-Alexandre Klein; Etienne Olivier; Julie Duque
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2012-12-12       Impact factor: 6.167

6.  Motor "dexterity"?: Evidence that left hemisphere lateralization of motor circuit connectivity is associated with better motor performance in children.

Authors:  Anita D Barber; Priti Srinivasan; Suresh E Joel; Brian S Caffo; James J Pekar; Stewart H Mostofsky
Journal:  Cereb Cortex       Date:  2011-05-25       Impact factor: 5.357

7.  Evidence for two concurrent inhibitory mechanisms during response preparation.

Authors:  Julie Duque; David Lew; Riccardo Mazzocchio; Etienne Olivier; Richard B Ivry
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2010-03-10       Impact factor: 6.167

8.  Intracranial EEG reveals a time- and frequency-specific role for the right inferior frontal gyrus and primary motor cortex in stopping initiated responses.

Authors:  Nicole Swann; Nitin Tandon; Ryan Canolty; Timothy M Ellmore; Linda K McEvoy; Stephen Dreyer; Michael DiSano; Adam R Aron
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2009-10-07       Impact factor: 6.167

Review 9.  Insights into the neural basis of response inhibition from cognitive and clinical neuroscience.

Authors:  Christopher D Chambers; Hugh Garavan; Mark A Bellgrove
Journal:  Neurosci Biobehav Rev       Date:  2008-09-11       Impact factor: 8.989

Review 10.  Convergent models of handedness and brain lateralization.

Authors:  Robert L Sainburg
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2014-10-08
View more
  16 in total

1.  Visuomotor Correlates of Conflict Expectation in the Context of Motor Decisions.

Authors:  Gerard Derosiere; Pierre-Alexandre Klein; Sylvie Nozaradan; Alexandre Zénon; André Mouraux; Julie Duque
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2018-09-10       Impact factor: 6.167

Review 2.  Physiological Markers of Motor Inhibition during Human Behavior.

Authors:  Julie Duque; Ian Greenhouse; Ludovica Labruna; Richard B Ivry
Journal:  Trends Neurosci       Date:  2017-03-21       Impact factor: 13.837

3.  The supplementary motor area modulates interhemispheric interactions during movement preparation.

Authors:  Quentin Welniarz; Cécile Gallea; Jean-Charles Lamy; Aurélie Méneret; Traian Popa; Romain Valabregue; Benoît Béranger; Vanessa Brochard; Constance Flamand-Roze; Oriane Trouillard; Cécilia Bonnet; Norbert Brüggemann; Pierre Bitoun; Bertrand Degos; Cécile Hubsch; Elodie Hainque; Jean-Louis Golmard; Marie Vidailhet; Stéphane Lehéricy; Isabelle Dusart; Sabine Meunier; Emmanuel Roze
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2019-01-17       Impact factor: 5.038

4.  Planning face, hand, and leg movements: anatomical constraints on preparatory inhibition.

Authors:  Ludovica Labruna; Claudia Tischler; Christian Cazares; Ian Greenhouse; Julie Duque; Florent Lebon; Richard B Ivry
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2019-02-20       Impact factor: 2.714

Review 5.  Inhibition for gain modulation in the motor system.

Authors:  Ian Greenhouse
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2022-03-26       Impact factor: 1.972

6.  Stimulation of Different Sectors of the Human Dorsal Premotor Cortex Induces a Shift from Reactive to Predictive Action Strategies and Changes in Motor Inhibition: A Dense Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) Mapping Study.

Authors:  Luigi Cattaneo; Sara Parmigiani
Journal:  Brain Sci       Date:  2021-04-24

7.  A Double-Coil TMS Method to Assess Corticospinal Excitability Changes at a Near-Simultaneous Time in the Two Hands during Movement Preparation.

Authors:  Emmanuelle Wilhelm; Caroline Quoilin; Charlotte Petitjean; Julie Duque
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2016-03-07       Impact factor: 3.169

8.  Effect of Aging on Motor Inhibition during Action Preparation under Sensory Conflict.

Authors:  Julie Duque; Charlotte Petitjean; Stephan P Swinnen
Journal:  Front Aging Neurosci       Date:  2016-12-27       Impact factor: 5.750

Review 9.  The Pause-then-Cancel model of human action-stopping: Theoretical considerations and empirical evidence.

Authors:  Darcy A Diesburg; Jan R Wessel
Journal:  Neurosci Biobehav Rev       Date:  2021-07-19       Impact factor: 9.052

10.  Comparison of Motor Inhibition in Variants of the Instructed-Delay Choice Reaction Time Task.

Authors:  Caroline Quoilin; Julien Lambert; Benvenuto Jacob; Pierre-Alexandre Klein; Julie Duque
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-08-31       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.