Involvement of SMAp in the intention-related long latency stretch reflex modulation: A TMS study
Introduction
Following a movement perturbation, the induced muscle stretch causes a series of reflex contractions (that form the stretch reflex) on the stretched muscles (Jaeger et al., 1982, Lee and Tatton, 1982, Gielen et al., 1988), and among others the Long Latency Stretch Reflex (LLSR), starting around 50–60 ms after movement perturbation. Contrary to the short latency stretch reflex, the LLSR adapts to cognitive factors such as the subject’s prior intent, given the environmental constraints (Hammond, 1956, Rothwell et al., 1980, Bonnet, 1983, MacKinnon et al., 2000, Kimura et al., 2006). As a result, the reaction to movement perturbations can be fast and well adapted according to a prior intention, allowing the movement to reach its goals despite transient environmental forces’ perturbations. Nowadays, it is widely accepted that the LLSR is generated by a rapid transcortical loop (Phillips, 1969; for reviews, see: Marsden et al., 1983, Matthews, 1991), presumably through the primary motor cortex (M1) (MacKinnon et al., 2000, Tsuji and Rothwell, 2002, Spieser et al., 2010). Moreover, M1 has been shown to be involved in the LLSR amplitude modulation (Abbruzzese et al., 1985, Bonnard et al., 2004, Kimura et al., 2006, Spieser et al., 2010). In Kimura et al. (2006) study, Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) was used to transiently interrupt M1 activity at the moment of the reflex generation, while the LLSR amplitude varied as a function of the dynamical context in which the subject realized the task. To this aim, they used the Silent Period caused by TMS as an indicator of M1 inhibition duration and applied TMS over M1 50 ms before perturbation occurrence at an intensity sufficient to induce a Silent Period of at least 100 ms. They showed that this temporary inactivation of M1 led to the suppression of the reflex modulation, indicating that M1 is essential to the LLSR modulation. More recently, the cortical mechanisms involved were probed using combined EEG–TMS (Spieser et al., 2010). In this study, subjects were asked either to resist or not to react (i.e. to “let-go”) to a passive wrist extension and Event-Related Potentials (ERPs) evoked either by a TMS applied over M1 during the perturbation expectation or by the perturbation itself were recorded. The results showed that both the ERPs obtained in response to TMS during the perturbation expectation and the ERPs evoked by the perturbation itself were modulated according to subject’s intention, suggesting that anticipatory processes preset the primary sensorimotor cortex activity in order to adapt its early reaction to the subject’s intention.
In the present study, we tested the hypothesis that the Supplementary Motor Area (SMA), and specifically its caudal part called SMA proper (SMAp), is involved in those anticipatory processes presetting M1 activity. Indeed, M1 receives multiple afferences, particularly from SMAp and dorsal and ventral premotor cortices (Luppino et al., 1993). It has thus been proposed that those networks, upstream to M1, influence its dynamical state. The hypothesis of SMAp involvement in the LLSR amplitude modulation has been proposed by several authors (Tanji and Taniguchi, 1978, Tanji et al., 1980, Hummelsheim et al., 1986, Dick et al., 1987, Alexander and Crutcher, 1990). In studies from Tanji and collaborators (Tanji and Taniguchi, 1978, Tanji et al., 1980), monkeys had to prepare either to resist or let-go a mechanical perturbation. During the preparation to the perturbation, the authors showed a discharge modulation of some SMAp neurons after the instruction occurrence. Moreover, over the 201 neurons showing such a modulation, 94 showed an early modulation (as soon as 140 ms after the instruction) that differed as a function of the instruction. In another monkey study (Hummelsheim et al., 1986), a conditioning train stimulation of SMAp applied before elbow displacement (between −30 and −12 ms) has been shown to decrease the response of some M1 neurons to the perturbation. The authors thus proposed that SMAp could be involved in the LLSR amplitude modulation. Finally, regarding studies in Humans, a recent fMRI experiment showed that SMAp, as well as M1, was activated from the very beginning of the preparation to a mechanical perturbation (de Graaf et al., 2009). Nevertheless, this study revealed no difference in the BOLD signal of SMAp when the subject intended to resist or to let-go, therefore a specific involvement of SMAp in the LLSR modulation could not be established.
Thus, SMAp seems to be part of the sensorimotor network involved in the anticipation to a motor perturbation. However, its specific involvement in the LLSR modulation has not been clearly established in Humans. In the present experiment, SMAp involvement in the intention-related LLSR modulation was investigated by transiently inactivating SMAp: subjects were asked either to let-go or to resist a mechanical perturbation while TMS was applied over SMAp either 50 or 150 ms before perturbation occurrence. As in the study by Kimura et al. (2006), the 50-ms delay served to evaluate the impact of SMAp inactivation at the time of the LLSR generation. Indeed, applying TMS 50 ms before perturbation occurrence inactivated SMAp at least until the end of the LLSR generation (occurring approximately between 20 and 70 ms after the perturbation). The longer 150-ms delay allowed evaluation of the impact of SMAp inactivation at the end of the preparation period, but prior to the generation of the LLSR. For comparison, the effect of M1 transient inactivation at the same delays on the LLSR modulation was also tested. Moreover, as a Control condition, TMS was also applied over a non-involved area (right Brodmann area 19).
An additional interest of this experiment was to determine if muscular responses, i.e. a Motor-Evoked Potential (MEP) and/or a Silent Period, can be systemically elicited by a single-pulse TMS applied over SMAp and, if so, whether these responses are modulated by the subject prior intention. Indeed, only a few studies have used single-pulse TMS to stimulate SMAp, and even fewer via a precise neuronavigation system. However, it has been shown using neuronavigation that MEPs followed by a Silent Period can be elicited by stimulating non-primary motor areas (Teitti et al., 2008, Vaalto et al., 2010). In those studies, the authors reported that MEPs could be easily evoked by applying TMS over the superior frontal gyrus, and principally over Brodmann area 6 (Teitti et al., 2008), presumably corresponding to the dorsal premotor cortex (dPMC) (Teitti et al., 2008, Vaalto et al., 2010). The observed MEPs were compared to those elicited by M1 stimulation, and results showed that MEPs evoked by applying TMS over dPMC were similar in both shape and latency to MEPs obtained by TMS over M1. This suggests that MEPs evoked by dPMC stimulation reflect direct corticospinal projections originating from this area. Similarly to dPMC, SMAp is known to send direct corticospinal fibers since corticospinal projections both on motoneurons and on spinal interneurons have been observed in monkeys (Dum and Strick, 1991). In Humans, such projections have not yet been observed but are strongly suspected (for a recent study, see Chen et al., 2013), and would be coherent with what is known across phylogenetic evolution (Nakajima et al., 2000).
Section snippets
Subjects
This study was conducted on eight right-handed healthy subjects (five females and three males, mean age: 30). No subjects had previous neurological disease or contraindications to TMS. All gave their informed consent and the study was approved by the ethics committee (CPP Sud Méditerranée I).
Experimental set up
The subject sat in a comfortable armchair, facing a computer screen, on which the instructions appeared. His/her right forearm and hand were in a semi-pronation position and attached in a manipulandum
Behavioral data
Mean movement amplitude was smaller for the RES condition than the LGO condition whatever the stimulated area (SMAp: RES: 29 ± 10.3° and LGO: 69.3 ± 7.2°, F1,14 = 111.33, p < 0.05; M1: RES: 28.8 ± 7.9° and LGO: 70.2 ± 7°, F1,14 = 102.86, p < 0.05; Control: RES: 28.9 ± 11.5° and LGO: 70.5 ± 8.5°, F1,14 = 75.68, p < 0.05). In the Control condition, movement amplitude was also affected by the TMS delay (F2,14 = 4.68, p < 0.05): the movement amplitude was reduced in TMS trials compared to noTMS trials in the RES condition.
Discussion
The goal of this experiment was to study the involvement of SMAp in the intention-related LLSR modulation. We used TMS simultaneously in two manners: (1) to transiently inactivate this area at different time delays before a mechanical perturbation and (2) to probe SMAp excitability under perturbation expectation, based on the muscular responses evoked by TMS over SMAp. Three main results were obtained: (1) when TMS is applied on SMAp either 50 or 150 ms before the perturbation, the LLSR
General conclusions
In conclusion, in line with several previous studies (Abbruzzese et al., 1985, Kimura et al., 2006, Spieser et al., 2010), the implication of M1 in the intention-related LLSR modulation was confirmed. More importantly, the present study showed that SMAp also plays an essential role in this LLSR modulation. On the one hand, the inactivation of SMAp at the end of the preparatory phase or during the LLSR generation decreased the intention-related reflex modulation, showing the causal role of this
Acknowledgments
This study was supported by the “Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique” and Aix-Marseille University. The authors warmly thank Professor P. Chauvel for assuming the medical responsibility for the project.
References (46)
Anticipatory changes of long-latency stretch responses during preparation for directional hand movements
Brain Res
(1983)- et al.
Transcranial magnetic stimulation can be used to test connections to primary motor areas from frontal and medial cortex in humans
Neuroimage
(2001) - et al.
Modulation of the long-latency reflex to stretch by the supplementary motor area in humans
Neurosci Lett
(1987) - et al.
The supplementary motor area modulates perturbation-evoked discharges of neurones in the precentral motor cortex
Neurosci Lett
(1986) - et al.
An automated method for neuroanatomic and cytoarchitectonic atlas-based interrogation of fMRI data sets
Neuroimage
(2003) The human stretch reflex and the motor cortex
Trends Neurosci
(1991)- et al.
Three-dimensional locations and boundaries of motor and premotor cortices as defined by functional brain imaging: a meta-analysis
Neuroimage
(2006) - et al.
Corticospinal control of wrist muscles during expectation of a motor perturbation: a transcranial magnetic stimulation study
Behav Brain Res
(2009) - et al.
Cortical mechanisms underlying stretch reflex adaptation to intention: a combined EEG–TMS study
Neuroimage
(2010) - et al.
Non-primary motor areas in the human frontal lobe are connected directly to hand muscles
Neuroimage
(2008)
Cerebral potentials and electromyographic responses evoked by stretch of wrist muscles in man
Exp Brain Res
Preparation for movement: neural representations of intended direction in three motor areas of the monkey
J Neurophysiol
Interactions between cognitive and sensorimotor functions in the motor cortex: evidence from the preparatory motor sets anticipating a motor perturbation
Rev Neurosci
Role of intracortical mechanisms in the late part of the silent period to transcranial stimulation of the human motor cortex
Acta Neurol Scand
Functional connectivity between secondary and primary motor areas underlying hand–foot coordination
J Neurophysiol
Functional corticospinal projections from human supplementary motor area revealed by corticomuscular coherence during precise grip force control
PLoS One
Frontal lobe inputs to the digit representations of the motor areas on the lateral surface of the hemisphere
J Neurosci
The origin of corticospinal projections from the premotor areas in the frontal lobe
J Neurosci
Functional neuroanatomy of the primate isocortical motor system
Anat Embryol (Berl)
Long-latency stretch reflexes as co-ordinated functional responses in man
J Physiol
Preparing for a motor perturbation: early implication of primary motor and somatosensory cortices
Hum Brain Mapp
The influence of prior instruction to the subject on an apparently involuntary neuro-muscular response
J Physiol
Silent period evoked by transcranial stimulation of the human cortex and cervicomedullary junction
J Physiol
Cited by (14)
Skin and muscle receptors shape coordinated fast feedback responses in the upper limb
2021, Current Opinion in PhysiologyCitation Excerpt :The supraspinal component includes a transcortical pathway involving primary motor cortex (M1), shown in humans via noninvasive neural recordings [6] and brain stimulation [7], and electrophysiology and lesion studies in non-human primates [7–9]. Other supraspinal regions contribute including dorsal premotor cortex [9], supplementary motor area [10], posterior parietal cortex [9], cerebellum [11], and reticular formation [12,13]. The SLR is functionally limited and relatively inflexible, though it can be modified according to changes in body configuration [14] or with extensive training [15,16].
Spoken language coding neurons in the Visual Word Form Area: Evidence from a TMS adaptation paradigm
2019, NeuroImageCitation Excerpt :This area was identified anatomically according to the method of Yousry et al. (1997). The initial stimulation intensity applied to M1 was adjusted to the depth of the left-vOT in order to equalize the induced electric field value within the two areas (Spieser et al., 2013). The adjusted intensity was computed by the neuronavigation software (Navigation Brain System 2.3 Nexstim, Helsinki, Finland).
Feedback control during voluntary motor actions
2015, Current Opinion in NeurobiologyCitation Excerpt :Inhibition of supplementary motor area (SMA) using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) diminishes the typical modulation of the LLR observed for a ‘resist’/do not resist’ paradigm. Reduction of LLR modulation following SMA inhibition suggests SMA may have a direct influence on the LLR and/or that SMA ‘presets’ M1 activity according to task instruction prior to perturbation onset [80]. Finally, a recent study found that task-dependent LLRs were absent in chronic stroke patients with unilateral cortical lesions [81•].