» Articles » PMID: 24440530

Re-thinking the Role of Motor Cortex: Context-sensitive Motor Outputs?

Overview
Journal Neuroimage
Specialty Radiology
Date 2014 Jan 21
PMID 24440530
Citations 41
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The standard account of motor control considers descending outputs from primary motor cortex (M1) as motor commands and efference copy. This account has been challenged recently by an alternative formulation in terms of active inference: M1 is considered as part of a sensorimotor hierarchy providing top-down proprioceptive predictions. The key difference between these accounts is that predictions are sensitive to the current proprioceptive context, whereas efference copy is not. Using functional electric stimulation to experimentally manipulate proprioception during voluntary movement in healthy human subjects, we assessed the evidence for context sensitive output from M1. Dynamic causal modeling of functional magnetic resonance imaging responses showed that FES altered proprioception increased the influence of M1 on primary somatosensory cortex (S1). These results disambiguate competing accounts of motor control, provide some insight into the synaptic mechanisms of sensory attenuation and may speak to potential mechanisms of action of FES in promoting motor learning in neurorehabilitation.

Citing Articles

Altered cortical activation patterns in post-stroke patients during walking with two-channel functional electrical stimulation: a functional near-infrared spectroscopy observational study.

Xu S, Zhu S, Li M, Zhang T, Wang Q, Sui Y Front Neurol. 2025; 15:1449667.

PMID: 39871991 PMC: 11769814. DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2024.1449667.


Unsupervised, piecewise linear decoding enables an accurate prediction of muscle activity in a multi-task brain computer interface.

Ma X, Rizzoglio F, Bodkin K, Miller L J Neural Eng. 2025; 22(1).

PMID: 39823647 PMC: 11775726. DOI: 10.1088/1741-2552/adab93.


Deciphering brain activation during wrist movements: comparative fMRI and fNIRS analysis of active, passive, and imagery states.

Jalalvandi M, Sharini H, Shafaghi L, Alam N Exp Brain Res. 2024; 243(1):36.

PMID: 39739121 DOI: 10.1007/s00221-024-06977-7.


Unsupervised, piecewise linear decoding enables an accurate prediction of muscle activity in a multi-task brain computer interface.

Ma X, Rizzoglio F, Bodkin K, Miller L bioRxiv. 2024; .

PMID: 39314275 PMC: 11419126. DOI: 10.1101/2024.09.09.612102.


Differences in the organization of the primary motor cortex in people with and without low back pain and associations with motor control and sensory tests.

Klerx S, Bruijn S, Coppieters M, Kiers H, Twisk J, Pool-Goudzwaard A Exp Brain Res. 2024; 242(7):1609-1622.

PMID: 38767666 PMC: 11208231. DOI: 10.1007/s00221-024-06844-5.


References
1.
Collins D . Central contributions to contractions evoked by tetanic neuromuscular electrical stimulation. Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 2007; 35(3):102-9. DOI: 10.1097/jes.0b013e3180a0321b. View

2.
Gandolla M, Ferrante S, Casellato C, Ferrigno G, Molteni F, Martegani A . fMRI brain mapping during motion capture and FES induced motor tasks: signal to noise ratio assessment. Med Eng Phys. 2011; 33(8):1027-32. DOI: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2011.04.005. View

3.
Christensen M, Grey M . Modulation of proprioceptive feedback during functional electrical stimulation: an fMRI study. Eur J Neurosci. 2013; 37(11):1766-78. DOI: 10.1111/ejn.12178. View

4.
Friston K, Harrison L, Penny W . Dynamic causal modelling. Neuroimage. 2003; 19(4):1273-302. DOI: 10.1016/s1053-8119(03)00202-7. View

5.
Bergquist A, Clair J, Lagerquist O, Mang C, Okuma Y, Collins D . Neuromuscular electrical stimulation: implications of the electrically evoked sensory volley. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2011; 111(10):2409-26. DOI: 10.1007/s00421-011-2087-9. View