↓ Skip to main content

Unilateral movement preparation causes task‐specific modulation of TMS responses in the passive, opposite limb

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Physiology, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
43 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Unilateral movement preparation causes task‐specific modulation of TMS responses in the passive, opposite limb
Published in
Journal of Physiology, June 2018
DOI 10.1113/jp275433
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Activity in the primary motor cortices of both hemispheres increases during unilateral movement preparation, but the functional role of ipsilateral motor cortex activity is unknown. Ipsilateral motor cortical activity could represent subliminal 'motor planning' for the passive limb. Alternatively, it could represent the state of the active limb, to support coordination between the limbs should a bimanual movement be required. Here we assessed how preparation of forces toward different directions, with the left wrist, alters evoked responses to transcranial magnetic stimulation of left motor cortex. Preparation of a unilateral movement caused excitability increases in ipsilateral motor cortex that reflected forces produced with the active limb in an intrinsic (body-centred), rather than an extrinsic (world-centred), coordinate system. These results suggest that ipsilateral motor cortical activity prior to unilateral action reflects the state of the active limb, rather than subliminal motor planning for the passive limb. Corticospinal excitability is modulated for muscles on both sides of the body during unilateral movement preparation. For the effector, there is a progressive increase in excitability, and a shift in direction of muscle twitches evoked by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) toward the impending movement. By contrast, the directional characteristics of excitability changes in the opposite (passive) limb have not been fully characterized. Here we assessed how preparation of voluntary forces towards four spatially distinct visual targets with the left wrist alters muscle twitches and motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) elicited by TMS of left motor cortex. MEPs were facilitated significantly more in muscles homologous to agonist rather than antagonist muscles in the active limb, from 120 ms prior to voluntary EMG onset. Thus, unilateral motor preparation has a directionally specific influence on pathways projecting to the opposite limb that corresponds to the active muscles rather than the direction of movement in space. The directions of TMS-evoked twitches also deviated toward the impending force direction of the active limb, according to muscle-based coordinates, following the onset of voluntary EMG. The data indicate that preparation of a unilateral movement increases task-dependent excitability in ipsilateral motor cortex, or its downstream projections, that reflects the forces applied by the active limb in an intrinsic (body-centred), rather than an extrinsic (world-centred), coordinate system. The results suggest that ipsilateral motor cortical activity prior to unilateral action reflects the state of the active limb, rather than subliminal motor planning for the passive limb.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 14%
Student > Bachelor 5 12%
Researcher 5 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Student > Postgraduate 3 7%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 13 30%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 10 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 12%
Psychology 3 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Philosophy 1 2%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 15 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 May 2019.
All research outputs
#24,100,909
of 34,376,207 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Physiology
#9,261
of 12,248 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#250,335
of 372,575 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Physiology
#130
of 168 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,376,207 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,248 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.4. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 372,575 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 168 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.