Literature DB >> 30876882

Supplementary motor area plays a causal role in automatic inhibition of motor responses.

Yuichiro Shirota1, Ristuko Hanajima2, Shinya Ohminami3, Ryosuke Tsutsumi3, Yoshikazu Ugawa4, Yasuo Terao5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The masked-priming paradigm is used to test unconscious inhibitory processes of the brain. A tendency towards responses that are incompatible with the prime, designated as negative compatibility effect (NCE), emerges when the perception of a priming visual stimulus is "masked" afterwards. This effect presumably stems from a subliminal inhibitory process against the masked-prime. Prior lesions as well as activation studies suggest a key role of SMA in this effect.
OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted to elucidate a causal role of SMA in the subliminal response inhibition represented by the NCE.
METHODS: Using a repeated-measures pre-post design with a group of healthy people, physiological measures (resting and active motor thresholds and motor evoked potential (MEP) amplitude) and behavioral ones (choice reaction time (CRT), positive compatibility effect (PCE) and NCE) were obtained before and after three quadripulse stimulation (QPS), namely sham, M1-QPS, and SMA-QPS, on different days. CRT and PCE served as indices for different aspects of motor execution.
RESULTS: Motor thresholds were not altered after any QPS, although the M1-QPS increased MEP amplitude. Neither CRT nor PCE was altered significantly after QPS protocols. NCE was abolished after the SMA-QPS.
CONCLUSIONS: Abolished NCE after the SMA-QPS in the absence of MEP changes suggests that (1) SMA plays a cardinal role in the NCE, and (2) the network involved in NCE is different from that of MEP generation.
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Masked-priming; Motor evoked potential; Negative compatibility effect; Response inhibition; Transcranial magnetic stimulation

Year:  2019        PMID: 30876882     DOI: 10.1016/j.brs.2019.03.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Brain Stimul        ISSN: 1876-4754            Impact factor:   8.955


  3 in total

Review 1.  Quadripulse stimulation (QPS).

Authors:  Hideyuki Matsumoto; Yoshikazu Ugawa
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2020-03-24       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  Is the vertex a good control stimulation site? Theta burst stimulation in healthy controls.

Authors:  Dominik Pizem; Lubomira Novakova; Martin Gajdos; Irena Rektorova
Journal:  J Neural Transm (Vienna)       Date:  2022-01-25       Impact factor: 3.850

3.  Effect of different motor skills training on motor control network in the frontal lobe and basal ganglia.

Authors:  Jilong Shi; Jun Wang; Jian Lang; Zhuo Zhang; Yan Bi; Ran Liu; Shan Jiang; Lijuan Hou
Journal:  Biol Sport       Date:  2020-07-10       Impact factor: 2.806

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.