Search

Using instructed-delay choice reaction time (RT) paradigms, many previous studies have shown that the motor system is transiently inhibited during response preparation: motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) elicited by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) over the primary motor cortex are typically suppressed during the delay period. This effect has been observed in both selected and non-selected effectors, although MEP changes in selected effectors have been more inconsistent across task versions. Here, we compared changes in MEP amplitudes in three different variants of an instructed-delay choice RT task. All variants required participants to choose between left and right index finger movements but the responses were either provided “in the air” (Variant 1), on a regular keyboard (Variant 2), or on a response device designed to control from premature responses (Variant 3). The task variants also differed according to the visual layout (more concrete in Variant 3) and depending on whether participants received a feedback of their performance (absent in Variant 1). Behavior was globally comparable between the three variants of the task although the propensity to respond prematurely was highest in Variant 2 and lowest in Variant 3. MEPs elicited in a non-selected hand were similarly suppressed in the three variants of the task. However, significant differences emerged when considering MEPs elicited in the selected hand: these MEPs were suppressed in Variants 1 and 3 whereas they were often facilitated in Variant 2, especially in the right dominant hand. In conclusion, MEPs elicited in selected muscles seem to be more sensitive to small variations to the task design than those recorded in non-selected effectors, probably because they reflect a complex combination of inhibitory and facilitatory influences on the motor output system. Finally, the use of a standard keyboard seems to be particularly inappropriate because it encourages participants to respond promptly with no means to control for premature responses, probably increasing the relative amount of facilitatory influences at the time motor inhibition is probed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Top-down control is critical to select goal-directed actions in changeable environments, particularly when several options compete for selection. This control system is thought to involve a mechanism that suppresses activation of unwanted response representations. We tested this hypothesis, in humans, by measuring motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) elicited by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) in a left finger muscle during motor preparation in an adapted Eriksen flanker task. Subjects reported, by a left or right button-press, the orientation of a left- or right-facing central arrow, flanked by two distractor arrows on each side. Central and peripheral arrows either pointed in the same (congruent trial) or in the opposite direction (incongruent trial). Top-down control was manipulated by changing the probability of congruent and incongruent trials in a given block. In the “mostly incongruent” (MI) blocks, 80% of trials were incongruent, producing a context in which subjects strongly anticipated that they would have to face conflict. In the “mostly congruent” (MC) blocks, 80% of trials were congruent and thus subjects barely anticipated conflict in that context. Thus, we assume that top-down control was stronger in the MI than in the MC condition. Accordingly, subjects displayed a lower error rate and shorter reaction times for the incongruent trials in the MI context than for similar trials in the MC context. More interestingly, we found that top-down control specifically reduced activation of the incompatible motor representation during response selection under high conflict. That is, when the central arrow specified a right hand response, left (non-selected) MEPs became smaller in the MI than in the MC condition, but only for incongruent trials, and this measure was positively correlated with performance. In contrast, MEPs elicited in the non-selected hand during congruent trials, or during all trials in which the left hand was selected, tended to increase more after the imperative signal in the MI than the MC condition. Another important observation was that, overall, MEPs were already strongly suppressed at the onset of the imperative signal and that this effect was particularly pronounced in the MI context. Hence, suppression of motor excitability seems to be a key component of conflict resolution. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Previous studies have identified two inhibitory mechanisms that operate during action selection and preparation. Onemechanism, competition resolution, is manifest in the inhibition of the nonselected response and attributed to competition between candidate actions. The second mechanism, impulse control, is manifest in the inhibition of the selected response and is presumably invoked to prevent premature response. To identify constraints on the operation of these two inhibitory mechanisms, we manipulated the effectors used for the response alternatives, measuring changes in corticospinal excitabilitywithmotor-evoked potentials to TMS. Inhibition of the selected response (impulse control) was independent of the task context, consistent with a model in which this form of inhibition is automatically triggered as part of response preparation. In contrast, inhibition of the nonselected response (competition resolution) was context-dependent. Inhibition of the nonselected response was observed when the response alternatives involved movements of the upper limbs but was absent when one response alternative involved an upper limb and the other involved a lower limb. Interestingly, competition resolution for pairs of upper limbs did not require homologous effectors, observed when a left index finger response was pitted with either a nonhomologous right index finger movement or a right arm movement. These results argue against models in which competition resolution is viewed as a generic or fully flexible process, as well as models based on strong anatomical constraints. Rather, they are consistent with models in which inhibition for action selection is constrained by the similarity between the potential responses, perhaps reflecting an experience-dependent mechanism sensitive to the past history of competitive interactions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]