Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
  • SUBSCRIBE

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Neuroscience
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Neuroscience

Advanced Search

Submit a Manuscript
  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
  • SUBSCRIBE
PreviousNext
Journal Club

Weight Lifting in the Human Brain

Floris P. de Lange
Journal of Neuroscience 11 October 2006, 26 (41) 10327-10328; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3867-06.2006
Floris P. de Lange
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

The world, just like us, is constantly changing. Making predictions about what will happen to you when you do something (and correcting these predictions based on what is actually happening) is therefore of vital importance. An influential theory states that the brain solves this challenge by using forward models: while you grasp an object, the anticipated sensory consequence of your action is compared with the actual sensory input. If there is an error, e.g., because you think the object is heavy and it turns out to be light, a corrective signal is sent back to the motor cortex to quickly adapt the motor command.

Although there is ample psychophysical evidence for forward models (for review, see Wolpert and Ghahramani, 2000), and the concept may extend to explaining even some forms of psychiatric behavior (Frith et al., 2000), the neural architecture responsible for these computations is still not fully understood. Jenmalm et al. (2006) have made a significant contribution to this topic using functional magnetic resonance imaging in a study recently published in the Journal of Neuroscience.

The authors instructed participants to lift an object with their right hand, using the tips of their index fingers and thumbs. On some trials, the weight of the object changed unpredictably: a light object became heavier or a heavy object became lighter. These weight changes were effectuated by the experimenter adding or removing an extra weight, outside the scanner, that was connected to the object that had to be grasped. During the experiment, force and position signals, as well as acquisition times of each scan were recorded simultaneously. This sophisticated experimental setup allowed the authors to compare behavioral performance and brain activity with event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging during lifting trials in which the weight unpredictably changed to trials when there was no weight change. Consistency and robustness of differences in brain activity was ensured by taking into account intersubject variability in the statistical model and correcting the results for multiple comparisons in an a priori search space based on independent data.

From a theoretical point of view, when the weight changes unpredictably, the predicted sensory feedback and the actual sensory feedback do not match. Therefore, the module comparing the predicted and actual sensory feedback will generate an error signal. By contrasting brain activity during trials with a weight change to trials in which no such change took place, the authors could localize this “comparator node.”

Weight changes led to increased activity in the right inferior parietal cortex [Jenmalm et al. (2006), their Fig. 3 (http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/full/26/35/9015/F3)]. A previous study shows that disruption of the posterior parietal cortex by means of transcranial magnetic stimulation interferes with the ability to quickly correct a movement on the basis of new sensory information (Desmurget et al., 1999). Together, these data and the location and connectivity of this region, receiving input from sensory cortices and having output connections to the motor regions, make it a good candidate for “comparator region.”

There were also differences in brain activity that were specific to the direction of the weight change. The left primary sensorimotor cortex became more active when the weight was increased and less active when the weight was decreased [Jenmalm et al. (2006), their Fig. 4A (http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/full/26/35/9015/F4)]. The right cerebellum had an opposite, inhibitory role: it became more active when the weight was decreased and less active when the weight was increased [Jenmalm et al. (2006), their Fig. 4B (http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/full/26/35/9015/F4)]. These activities likely reflect the actual force corrections of the right hand that had to be performed and their sensory consequences. This is consistent with the excitatory and inhibitory roles of the primary sensorimotor cortex and cerebellum, respectively, in the control of movements.

Although the study of Jenmalm et al. advances our understanding of where the different nodes that interact during movement corrections are located, the “how question” is still open: that is, how do these brain regions interact to generate these fast corrective responses? To understand this, we have to look at the dynamics of the system and investigate how the inferior parietal cortex, the cerebellum, and the primary sensorimotor cortex interact. One possible mechanism is that the predicted sensory consequence and actual sensory feedback are compared in the inferior parietal lobe and, from this region, a corrective signal is sent to the primary sensorimotor cortex and cerebellum. At present, this is pure speculation. However, new analysis methods, such as dynamic causal modeling (Friston et al., 2003) aiming at describing the interaction between brain regions, could help to elucidate these interactions.

The study by Jenmalm et al. is an excellent building block for future studies, because it allows focusing on the target regions identified in this study. Understanding their interactions will now be a major goal for future neuroimaging studies.

Footnotes

  • Editor’s Note: These short reviews of a recent paper in the Journal, written exclusively by graduate students or postdoctoral fellows, are intended to mimic the journal clubs that exist in your own departments or institutions. For more information on the format and purpose of the Journal Club, please see http://www.jneurosci.org/misc/ifa_features.shtml.

  • Correspondence should be addressed to Floris P. de Lange, Department of Intention and Action, F. C. Donders Centre for Cognitive Neuroimaging, P.O. Box 9101, NL-6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. floris.delange{at}fcdonders.ru.nl

References

  1. ↵
    1. Desmurget M,
    2. Epstein CM,
    3. Turner RS,
    4. Prablanc C,
    5. Alexander GE,
    6. Grafton ST
    (1999) Role of the posterior parietal cortex in updating reaching movements to a visual target. Nat Neurosci 2:563–567.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Friston KJ,
    2. Harrison L,
    3. Penny W
    (2003) Dynamic causal modelling. NeuroImage 19:1273–1302.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Frith CD,
    2. Blakemore S,
    3. Wolpert DM
    (2000) Explaining the symptoms of schizophrenia: abnormalities in the awareness of action. Brain Res Brain Res Rev 31:357–363.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Jenmalm P,
    2. Schmitz C,
    3. Forssberg H,
    4. Ehrsson HH
    (2006) Lighter or heavier than predicted: neural correlates of corrective mechanisms during erroneously programmed lifts. J Neurosci 26:9015–9021.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    1. Wolpert DM,
    2. Ghahramani Z
    (2000) Computational principles of movement neuroscience. Nat Neurosci ([Suppl] 3):1212–1217.
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Neuroscience: 26 (41)
Journal of Neuroscience
Vol. 26, Issue 41
11 Oct 2006
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for sharing this Journal of Neuroscience article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Weight Lifting in the Human Brain
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of Neuroscience
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Journal of Neuroscience.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
View Full Page PDF
Citation Tools
Weight Lifting in the Human Brain
Floris P. de Lange
Journal of Neuroscience 11 October 2006, 26 (41) 10327-10328; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3867-06.2006

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Request Permissions
Share
Weight Lifting in the Human Brain
Floris P. de Lange
Journal of Neuroscience 11 October 2006, 26 (41) 10327-10328; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3867-06.2006
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Responses to this article

Respond to this article

Jump to comment:

No eLetters have been published for this article.

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Lateral Preoptic Hypothalamus: A Window to Understanding Insomnia
  • Cortical Inhibition, Plasticity, and Sleep
  • Dissociating Hippocampal and Cortical Contributions to Predictive Processing
Show more Journal Club
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Facebook
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on Twitter
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on LinkedIn
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Youtube
  • Follow our RSS feeds

Content

  • Early Release
  • Current Issue
  • Issue Archive
  • Collections

Information

  • For Authors
  • For Advertisers
  • For the Media
  • For Subscribers

About

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact
(JNeurosci logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2023 by the Society for Neuroscience.
JNeurosci Online ISSN: 1529-2401

The ideas and opinions expressed in JNeurosci do not necessarily reflect those of SfN or the JNeurosci Editorial Board. Publication of an advertisement or other product mention in JNeurosci should not be construed as an endorsement of the manufacturer’s claims. SfN does not assume any responsibility for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from or related to any use of any material contained in JNeurosci.