4.5 Article

Modulation of fronto-parietal connections during the rubber hand illusion

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
卷 45, 期 7, 页码 964-974

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ejn.13538

关键词

anterior intraparietal sulcus; body ownership; paired-pulse TMS; primary motor cortex; sensory-motor mismatch

资金

  1. Lundbeck Foundation [R59-A5399]
  2. Novo Nordisk Foundation [NNF14OC0011413]
  3. Lundbeck Foundation [R186-2015-2138] Funding Source: researchfish
  4. Novo Nordisk Fonden [NNF14OC0011413] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Accumulating evidence suggests that parieto-frontal connections play a role in adjusting body ownership during the Rubber Hand Illusion (RHI). Using a motor version of the rubber hand illusion paradigm, we applied single-site and dual-site transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to investigate cortico-spinal and parietal-frontal connectivity during perceived rubber hand ownership. Healthy volunteers received a conditioning TMS pulse over left anterior intraparietal sulcus (aIPS) and a test TMS pulse over left primary motor cortex (M1). Motor Evoked Potentials (MEPs) were recorded at rest and during three RHI conditions: (i) agency and ownership, (ii) agency but no ownership and (iii) neither agency nor ownership. Parietal-motor communication differed among experimental conditions. The induction of action ownership was associated with an inhibitory parietal-to-motor connectivity, which was comparable to the aIPS-to-M1 inhibition present at rest. This aIPS-to-M1 inhibition disappeared during movement conditions not inducing ownership. Cortico-spinal excitability was not significantly modulated during the motor RHI as indicated by the task-constant MEP amplitude elicited by the M1 test pulse alone. Our results indicate that the perceived ownership over the rubber hand is associated with normal parietal-motor communication. This communication is disturbed if the sensorimotor conflict between one's own hand and the rubber hand is not resolved.

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

4.5
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