Literature DB >> 33052770

Balance perturbation-evoked cortical N1 responses are larger when stepping and not influenced by motor planning.

Aiden M Payne1, Lena H Ting1,2.   

Abstract

The cortical N1 response to balance perturbation is observed in electroencephalography recordings simultaneous to automatic balance-correcting muscle activity. We recently observed larger cortical N1s in individuals who had greater difficulty resisting compensatory steps, suggesting the N1 may be influenced by stepping or changes in response strategy. Here, we test whether the cortical N1 response is influenced by stepping (planned steps versus feet-in-place) or prior planning (planned vs. unplanned steps). We hypothesized that prior planning of a step would reduce the amplitude of the cortical N1 response to balance perturbations. In 19 healthy young adults (ages 19-38; 8 men and 11 women), we measured the cortical N1 amplitude evoked by 48 backward translational support-surface perturbations of unpredictable timing and amplitude in a single experimental session. Participants were asked to plan a stepping reaction on half of perturbations, but to resist stepping otherwise. Perturbations included an easy (8 cm, 16 cm/s) perturbation that was identical across participants and did not naturally elicit compensatory steps, and a height-adjusted difficult (18-22 cm, 38-42 cm/s) perturbation that frequently elicited compensatory steps despite instructions to resist stepping. In contrast to our hypothesis, cortical N1 response amplitudes did not differ between planned and unplanned stepping reactions, but cortical responses were 11% larger with the execution of planned compensatory steps compared with nonstepping responses to difficult perturbations. These results suggest a possible role for the cortical N1 in the execution of compensatory steps for balance recovery, and this role is not influenced by whether the compensatory step was planned before the perturbation.NEW & NOTEWORTHY The cortical N1 response to balance perturbation is larger when executing compensatory steps, suggesting a relationship between the cortical N1 and subsequent motor behavior. Additionally, the cortical N1 response is not impacted by prior planning of the stepping reaction, suggesting that predictability of the motor outcome does not impact the N1 in the same way as predictability of the perturbation stimulus.

Entities:  

Keywords:  EEG; biomechanics; electromyography; kinematics; posture

Year:  2020        PMID: 33052770      PMCID: PMC7814905          DOI: 10.1152/jn.00341.2020

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurophysiol        ISSN: 0022-3077            Impact factor:   2.714


  45 in total

1.  External postural perturbations induce multiple anticipatory postural adjustments when subjects cannot pre-select their stepping foot.

Authors:  Jesse V Jacobs; Fay B Horak
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2006-11-08       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  Cortical activity prior to predictable postural instability: is there a difference between self-initiated and externally-initiated perturbations?

Authors:  George Mochizuki; Kathryn M Sibley; Hannah J Cheung; William E McIlroy
Journal:  Brain Res       Date:  2009-05-05       Impact factor: 3.252

3.  Influence of instruction, prediction, and afferent sensory information on the postural organization of step initiation.

Authors:  A Burleigh; F Horak
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  1996-04       Impact factor: 2.714

4.  The effects of two types of cognitive tasks on postural stability in older adults with and without a history of falls.

Authors:  A Shumway-Cook; M Woollacott; K A Kerns; M Baldwin
Journal:  J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci       Date:  1997-07       Impact factor: 6.053

Review 5.  Long-latency reflexes for inter-effector coordination reflect a continuous state feedback controller.

Authors:  Frederic Crevecoeur; Isaac Kurtzer
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2018-08-22       Impact factor: 2.714

6.  Cerebral potentials and leg muscle e.m.g. responses associated with stance perturbation.

Authors:  V Dietz; J Quintern; W Berger; E Schenck
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  1985       Impact factor: 1.972

7.  Observations upon the evoked responses to natural vestibular stimulation.

Authors:  J D Hood; A Kayan
Journal:  Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  1985-07

8.  Influence of expectation and arousal on center-of-pressure responses to transient postural perturbations.

Authors:  B E Maki; R S Whitelaw
Journal:  J Vestib Res       Date:  1993       Impact factor: 2.435

9.  Automated postural responses are modified in a functional manner by instruction.

Authors:  Vivian Weerdesteyn; Andrew C Laing; Stephen N Robinovitch
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2008-01-09       Impact factor: 1.972

10.  Changes in cortical activity associated with adaptive behavior during repeated balance perturbation of unpredictable timing.

Authors:  Andreas Mierau; Thorben Hülsdünker; Heiko K Strüder
Journal:  Front Behav Neurosci       Date:  2015-10-14       Impact factor: 3.558

View more
  2 in total

1.  Lower Cognitive Set Shifting Ability Is Associated With Stiffer Balance Recovery Behavior and Larger Perturbation-Evoked Cortical Responses in Older Adults.

Authors:  Aiden M Payne; Jacqueline A Palmer; J Lucas McKay; Lena H Ting
Journal:  Front Aging Neurosci       Date:  2021-12-06       Impact factor: 5.750

2.  The cortical N1 response to balance perturbation is associated with balance and cognitive function in different ways between older adults with and without Parkinson's disease.

Authors:  Aiden M Payne; J Lucas McKay; Lena H Ting
Journal:  Cereb Cortex Commun       Date:  2022-07-22
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.