4.2 Article

Modulation of motor surround inhibition during motor tasks

期刊

EXPERIMENTAL BRAIN RESEARCH
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00221-023-06748-w

关键词

Surround inhibition; Motor cortex; Writing; Motor evoked potential; Transcranial magnetic stimulation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluates surround inhibition (SI) in the motor system using real life tasks and a new method. The findings demonstrate that motor SI can be measured during tonic movements and exists during writing and holding a pen tasks.
Surround inhibition (SI) in the motor system is important in individuation of actions, but is sometimes difficult to demonstrate. It has also not been evaluated in real life tasks. In this study, we use real life tasks and a new method where excitability of the surround muscle is assessed with respect to its current activity level rather than when it is at rest. Motor evoked potential (MEP) amplitudes were measured in the abductor digiti minimi (ADM) muscle while participants performed several motor tasks: writing on paper, holding a pen precisely and, holding a water bottle against gravity. These MEPs were compared to ADM MEPs amplitudes measured during a fifth finger abduction (ADM being the center muscle). SI was also measured in the traditional way, by comparing ADM MEPs during an index finger flexion and at rest. For the writing and holding a pen tasks, but not the holding bottle task, the MEP amplitudes were significantly smaller when compared to MEP amplitudes when the ADM was the center muscle with the same level of activation. The ADM MEP amplitudes were not different between rest and during index finger flexion. The new method employed here shows, that motor SI can be measured during tonic movements. The findings also show motor SI during two real-life motor tasks: writing and holding a pen. The lack of modulation of MEP amplitude during holding bottle task seems to indicate that SI is action specific rather than muscle specific.

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

4.2
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