Literature DB >> 29533856

Motor-evoked potentials reveal functional differences between dominant and non-dominant motor cortices during response preparation.

Belinda J Poole1, Marius Mather1, Evan J Livesey1, Irina M Harris1, Justin A Harris2.   

Abstract

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) of the motor cortex produces motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) in contralateral muscles. The amplitude of these MEPs can be used to measure the excitability of the corticospinal tract during motor planning. In two experiments, we investigated learning-related changes in corticospinal excitability as subjects prepared to respond in a choice reaction-time task. Subjects responded with their left or right hand to a left or right arrow, and on some trials the arrow was immediately preceded by a warning cue that signaled which response would be required. TMS was applied to the motor cortex during the warning cues, and MEPs were measured in the dominant or non-dominant hand. We observed changes in corticospinal excitability during the warning cue, but these depended on which hand the subject was preparing to respond with, and how experienced they were with the task. When subjects prepared to respond with the non-dominant hand, excitability increased in the non-dominant hemisphere and decreased in the dominant hemisphere. These changes became stronger with task experience, and were accompanied by behavioral improvements in the task. When subjects were preparing a dominant-hand response, the non-dominant hemisphere was suppressed, but this effect disappeared as subjects gained experience with the task. There were no changes in the dominant hemisphere before dominant-hand responses. We conclude that preparing to respond with the non-dominant hand involves temporarily reversing an asymmetry in excitability that normally favors the dominant hemisphere, and that this pattern is enhanced by learning during the task.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:  Corticospinal; Handedness; Hemispheric asymmetry; MEP; Transcranial magnetic stimulation

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29533856     DOI: 10.1016/j.cortex.2018.02.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cortex        ISSN: 0010-9452            Impact factor:   4.027


  6 in total

1.  Reaction time asymmetries provide insight into mechanisms underlying dominant and non-dominant hand selection.

Authors:  Brooke Dexheimer; Andrzej Przybyla; Terrence E Murphy; Selcuk Akpinar; Robert Sainburg
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2022-09-06       Impact factor: 2.064

Review 2.  Action Selection and Motor Decision Making: Insights from Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation.

Authors:  Margherita Tecilla; Andrea Guerra; Lorenzo Rocchi; Sara Määttä; Matteo Bologna; Maria Herrojo Ruiz; Roberta Biundo; Angelo Antonini; Florinda Ferreri
Journal:  Brain Sci       Date:  2022-05-12

3.  Working memory load reduces corticospinal suppression to former go and trained no-go cues.

Authors:  Dominic M D Tran; William G Nicholson; Justin A Harris; Irina M Harris; Evan J Livesey
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-06-02       Impact factor: 4.379

4.  GABA Levels in Left and Right Sensorimotor Cortex Correlate across Individuals.

Authors:  Nicolaas A J Puts; Stefanie Heba; Ashley D Harris; Christopher John Evans; David J McGonigle; Martin Tegenthoff; Tobias Schmidt-Wilcke; Richard A E Edden
Journal:  Biomedicines       Date:  2018-07-24

5.  The Self-Prioritization Effect: Self-referential processing in movement highlights modulation at multiple stages.

Authors:  Clea Desebrock; Charles Spence
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2021-04-16       Impact factor: 2.199

6.  EEG Evoked Potentials to Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in Normal Volunteers: Inhibitory TMS EEG Evoked Potentials.

Authors:  Jing Zhou; Adam Fogarty; Kristina Pfeifer; Jordan Seliger; Robert S Fisher
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2022-02-24       Impact factor: 3.576

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.