4.7 Article

Oscillatory dynamics of response competition in human sensorimotor cortex

期刊

NEUROIMAGE
卷 83, 期 -, 页码 27-34

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.06.051

关键词

Neural oscillations; Motor cortex; Magneto-encephalography; Response preparation; Response competition

资金

  1. NWO (Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research)
  2. MaGW (Maatschappij en Gedragswetenschappen) [404-10-414]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Neurophysiological studies in non-human primates have provided evidence for simultaneous activation of competing responses in the (pre)motor cortex. Human evidence, however, is limited, partly because experimental approaches have often mapped competing responses to paired effectors represented in opposite hemispheres, which restricts the analysis to between-hemisphere comparisons and allows simultaneous execution. A demonstration of competition between different movement plans in the motor cortex is more compelling when simultaneous execution of the alternative responses is ruled out and they are represented in one motor cortex. Therefore, in the current MEG study we have used a unimanual Eriksen flanker paradigm with alternative responses assigned to flexion and extension of the right index finger, activating different direction-sensitive neurons within the finger representation area of the same motor cortex. Results showed that for stimuli eliciting response competition the pre-response motor cortex beta-band (17-29 Hz) power decreased stronger than for stimuli that did not induce response competition. Furthermore, response competition elicited an additional pre-response mid-frontal high-gamma band (60-90 Hz) power increase. Finally, larger gamma-band effect sizes correlated with greater behavioral response delay induced by response competition. Taken together, our results provide evidence for co-activation of competing responses in the human brain, consistent with evidence from non-human primates. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据