4.5 Article

Laterality, somatotopy and reproducibility of the basal ganglia and motor cortex during motor tasks

期刊

BRAIN RESEARCH
卷 879, 期 1-2, 页码 204-215

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0006-8993(00)02749-9

关键词

functional magnetic resonance imaging; striatum; putamen; motor control; laterality; extrapyramidal system; inhibition

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We investigated the basal ganglia, motor cortex area 4, and supplementary motor area (SMA) using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and five motor tasks: switching between finger and toe movements, writing, finger tapping, pronation/supination, and saccadic eye movements. We found reliable activation in the caudate nucleus and putamen in single subjects without the need for inter-subject averaging. Percent signal changes in basal ::anglia were smaller by a factor of three than those in SMA or motor cortex (1% vs. 2.5-3%). There was a definite foot-dorsal, hand-ventral basal ganglia somatotopy, similar to prior data from primates. Saccadic eye movements activated the caudate nucleus significantly more than the other tasks did. Unilateral movements produced bilateral activation in the striatum even when motor cortex activation was unilateral. Surprisingly, bilateral performance of the tasks led, on average, to consistently smaller basal ganglia activation than did unilateral performance (P<0.001), suggesting less inhibition of contralateral movements during bilateral tasks. Moreover, there was a striking dominance pattern in basal ganglia motor activation: the left basal ganglia were more active than the right for right handers, regardless of the hand used. This lateralization appears much stronger than that previously reported for motor cortex. Comparisons of inter-subject and intra-subject reproducibility indicated a much larger variability in basal ganglia and SMA compared to motor cortex, in spite of similar percent signal changes in the latter two structures. (C) 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. 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

4.5
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