Dataset Information

Motor training modulates intracortical inhibitory dynamics in motor cortex during movement preparation.

ABSTRACT: Background:The primary motor cortex (M1) has a vital role to play in the learning of novel motor skills. However, the physiological changes underpinning this learning, particularly in terms of dynamic changes during movement preparation, are incompletely understood. In particular, a substantial decrease in resting gamma-amino butyric acid (GABA) activity, i.e. a release of resting inhibition, is seen within M1 as a subject prepares to move. Although there is evidence that a decrease in resting inhibition occurs within M1 during motor learning it is not known whether the pre-movement "release" of GABAergic inhibition is modulated during skill acquisition.

Objective:Here, we investigated changes in pre-movement GABAergic inhibitory "release" during training on a motor skill task.

Methods:We studied GABA_A activity using paired-pulse TMS (Short-Interval Intracortical Inhibition (SICI)) during training on a ballistic thumb abduction task, both at rest and at two time-points during movement preparation.

Results:Improvement in task performance was related to a later, steeper, release of inhibition during the movement preparation phase. Specifically, subjects who showed greater improvement in the task in the early stages of training showed a reduced level of GABAergic release immediately prior to movement compared with those who improved less. Later in training, subjects who performed better showed a reduction in GABAergic release early in movement preparation.

Conclusions:These findings suggest that motor training is associated with maintained inhibition in motor cortex during movement preparation.

SUBMITTER: Dupont-Hadwen J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7116431 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Mar - Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Motor training modulates intracortical inhibitory dynamics in motor cortex during movement preparation.

Dupont-Hadwen J J Bestmann S S Stagg C J CJ

Brain stimulation 20181109 2

<h4>Background</h4>The primary motor cortex (M1) has a vital role to play in the learning of novel motor skills. However, the physiological changes underpinning this learning, particularly in terms of dynamic changes during movement preparation, are incompletely understood. In particular, a substantial decrease in resting gamma-amino butyric acid (GABA) activity, i.e. a release of resting inhibition, is seen within M1 as a subject prepares to move. Although there is evidence that a decrease in r ...[more]

PMID: 30552061

Similar Datasets

Project description:Face muscles are important in a variety of different functions, such as feeding, speech and communication of non-verbal affective states, which require quite different patterns of activity from those of a typical hand muscle. We ask whether there are differences in their neurophysiological control that might reflect this. Fifteen healthy individuals were studied. Standard single- and paired-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) methods were used to compare intracortical inhibitory (short interval intracortical inhibition (SICI); cortical silent period (CSP)) and excitatory circuitries (short interval intracortical facilitation (SICF)) in two typical muscles, the depressor anguli oris (DAO), a face muscle, and the first dorsal interosseous (FDI), a hand muscle. TMS threshold was higher in DAO than in FDI. Over a range of intensities, resting SICF was not different between DAO and FDI, while during muscle activation SICF was stronger in FDI than in DAO (P = 0.012). At rest, SICI was stronger in FDI than in DAO (P = 0.038) but during muscle contraction, SICI was weaker in FDI than in DAO (P = 0.034). We argue that although many of the difference in response to the TMS protocols could result from the difference in thresholds, some, such as the reduction of resting SICI in DAO, may reflect fundamental differences in the physiology of the two muscle groups. KEY POINTS: Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) single- and paired-pulse protocols were used to investigate and compare the activity of facilitatory and inhibitory intracortical circuits in a face (depressor anguli oris; DAO) and hand (first dorsal interosseous; FDI) muscles. Several TMS intensities and interstimulus intervals were tested with the target muscles at rest and when voluntarily activated. At rest, intracortical inhibitory activity was stronger in FDI than in DAO. In contrast, during muscle contraction inhibitory activity was stronger in DAO than in FDI. As many previous reports have found, the motor evoked potential threshold was higher in DAO than in FDI. Although many of the differences in response to the TMS protocols could result from the difference in thresholds, some, such as the reduction of resting short interval intracortical inhibition in DAO, may reflect fundamental differences in the physiology of the two muscle groups.

Project description:BackgroundPulses of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) with a predominantly anterior-posterior (AP) or posterior-anterior (PA) current direction over the primary motor cortex appear to activate distinct excitatory inputs to corticospinal neurons. In contrast, very few reports have examined whether the inhibitory neurons responsible for short-interval intracortical inhibition (SICI) are sensitive to TMS current direction.ObjectivesTo investigate whether SICI evaluated with AP and PA conditioning stimuli (CSPA and CSAP) activate different inhibitory pathways. SICI was always assessed using a PA-oriented test stimulus (TSPA).MethodsUsing two superimposed TMS coils, CSPA and CSAP were applied at interstimulus intervals (ISI) of 1-5 ms before a TSPA, and at a range of different intensities. Using a triple stimulation design, we then tested whether SICI at ISI of 3 ms using opposite directions of CS (SICICSPA3 and SICICSAP3) interacted differently with three other forms of inhibition, including SICI at ISI of 2 ms (SICICSPA2), cerebellum-motor cortex inhibition (CBI 5 ms) and short-latency afferent inhibition (SAI 22 ms). Finally, we compared the effect of tonic and phasic voluntary contraction on SICICSPA3 and SICICSAP3.ResultsCSAP produced little SICI at ISIs = 1 and 2 ms. However, at ISI = 3 ms, both CSAP and CSPA were equally effective at the same percent of maximum stimulator output. Despite this apparent similarity, combining SICICSPA3 or SICICSAP3 with other forms of inhibition led to quite different results: SICICSPA3 interacted in complex ways with CBI, SAI and SICICSPA2, whereas the effect of SICICSAP3 appeared to be quite independent of them. Although SICICSPA and SICICSAP were both reduced by the same amount during voluntary tonic contraction compared with rest, in a simple reaction time task SICICSAP was disinhibited much earlier following the imperative signal than SICICSPA.ConclusionsSICICSPA appears to activate a different inhibitory pathway to that activated by SICICSAP. The difference is behaviourally relevant since the pathways are controlled differently during volitional contraction. The results may explain some previous pathological data and open the possibility of testing whether these pathways are differentially recruited in a range of tasks.

Dataset Information

Motor training modulates intracortical inhibitory dynamics in motor cortex during movement preparation.

Publications

Motor training modulates intracortical inhibitory dynamics in motor cortex during movement preparation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets