Search

Previous findings from experiments involving anticipation-timing tasks have indicated that a point in time may exist after which a participant is committed to producing a pre-programmed movement. For example, if a "stop" signal is given too long after a "go" signal but prior to movement initiation, the response is often still produced. It has been suggested that a startling stimulus may act to elicit a pre-programmed response in reaction time (RT) tasks without involvement of the cerebral cortex (Valls-Solé et al. 1999). The present experiment employed a startling stimulus to investigate the temporal course of motor preparation during a stop-signal anticipation-timing task. Participants timed a key release coincident with the sweep of a clock hand reaching a target. On some trials, the clock hand stopped prior to reaching the target (meaning participants were to refrain from responding), which was accompanied by either a startling acoustic stimulus (124 dB) or control stimulus (82 dB). Results from startle trials indicate that while some advance preparation of motor circuits was evident, subcortical pre-programming and storage of the motor command in circuits common to the voluntary and startle response pathways was not completed well in advance of response production.

Quick voluntary responses to environmental stimuli are required of people on a daily basis. These movements have long been thought to be controlled via cortical loops involving processing of the stimulus and generation of a suitable response. Recent experiments have shown that in simple reaction time (RT) tasks, the appropriate response can be elicited much earlier (facilitated) when the "go" signal is replaced by a startling (124 dB) auditory stimulus. In the present experiment we combined a startling acoustic stimulus with an established RT paradigm that involved simple and choice RT. In a simple RT condition the prepared voluntary response was elicited at very short latencies following the startle. However, when cortical processing was required prior to responding (choice RT task), the startle did not facilitate the voluntary response, and gave rise to more movement production errors. Since movements requiring ongoing cortical processing following the stimulus are not facilitated by startle, it is unlikely that the startle facilitation is due to increased neural activation. In contrast, it appears more likely that the startle acts as an early trigger for subcortically stored prepared movements since movements that are prepared in advance can be initiated at such short latencies (<60 ms).

Recent experiments pairing a startling stimulus with a simple reaction time (RT) task have shown that when participants are startled, a prepared movement may be triggered earlier in comparison to voluntary initiation (Carlsen et al. 2003, in press; Siegmund et al. 2001; Valls-Solé et al. 1999). The use of this paradigm in experiments may provide new insights into processes that control rapid voluntary actions. However, because the startle response habituates with repeated exposure to the startling stimulus, its use in experiments may be limited. Previously Brown et al. (1991) and later Siegmund et al. (2001) noted that individuals habituate to a startling stimulus at different rates depending on the required activity level of the participant in the task. The present experiment was designed to determine the rate at which participants habituate to a startle during the completion of a RT task. Participants completed 100 trials in which an active wrist extension to a target was performed as fast as possible following an auditory tone. An unexpected 124 dB auditory startle stimulus accompanied the imperative stimulus in 20 of these trials. For the duration of the experiment, startle response electromyographic (EMG) activity continued to be produced in the sternocleidomastoid muscle (SCM) indicating that habituation was not complete after 20 startle trials. Furthermore RT in the startle condition was significantly shorter than control RT. However, findings indicate that when a measurable EMG burst in the SCM was present, RT was significantly shorter than when no SCM burst was present.

The muscle and kinematic responses of subjects exposed to postural perturbations have been shown to vary with platform acceleration when this acceleration was covaried with platform velocity or displacement. The purpose of the current study was to isolate platform acceleration and examine its effect on the neck muscle response and head kinematics of seated subjects exposed to anterior perturbations. Thirty-six subjects (20 females, 16 males) underwent two blocks of 36 perturbations. Three different perturbations with peak accelerations of 7.7, 14.7, and 21.7 m/s(2) up to a common velocity of 0.5 m/s were used. In one block, subjects received an audible warning corresponding to the platform acceleration magnitude, and in the other block, no advance warning was given. Onset and amplitude of the sternocleidomastoid and cervical paraspinal muscle responses were measured using surface electromyography. Kinematic measures included linear and angular accelerations and displacements of the head. The results showed no differences in either the preperturbation posture or the muscle or kinematic responses between the warned and unwarned trials. Significant differences were observed in the onset and amplitude of the muscle and kinematic variables with perturbation acceleration, although these response differences were not linearly graded with perturbation acceleration. Gradation of muscle activation times has not been previously observed in postural perturbation studies, and their gradation with platform acceleration in the current study suggested that platform acceleration was a strong regulator of the reflex muscle response in postural perturbations.