↓ Skip to main content

Corticospinal Excitability Is Modulated as a Function of Postural Perturbation Predictability

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 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.
Title
Corticospinal Excitability Is Modulated as a Function of Postural Perturbation Predictability
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, February 2018
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2018.00068
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kimiya Fujio, Hiroki Obata, Taku Kitamura, Noritaka Kawashima, Kimitaka Nakazawa

Abstract

Recent studies demonstrated that the corticospinal pathway is one of the key nodes for the feedback control of human standing and that the excitability is flexibly changed according to the current state of posture. However, it has been unclear whether this pathway is also involved in a predictive control of human standing. Here, we investigated whether the corticospinal excitability of the soleus (SOL) and tibialis anterior (TA) muscles during standing would be modulated anticipatorily when perturbation was impending. We measured the motor-evoked potential (MEP) induced by transcranial magnetic stimulation over the motor cortex at six stimulus intensities. Three experimental conditions were set depending on predictabilities about perturbation occurrence and onset: No perturbation, No Cue, and Cue conditions. In the Cue condition, an acoustic signal was given as timing information of perturbation. The slope of the stimulus-response relation curve revealed that the TA-MEP was enhanced when postural perturbation was expected compared to when the perturbation was not expected (No Perturbation vs. No Cue, 0.023 ± 0.004 vs. 0.042 ± 0.007; No Perturbation vs. Cue, 0.023 ± 0.004 vs. 0.050 ± 0.009; Bonferroni correction, p = 0.01, respectively). In addition, two-way analysis of variance (intensity × condition) revealed the main effect of condition (F(1,13) = 6.31, p = 0.03) but not intensity and interaction when the MEP amplitude of the Cue and No Cue conditions was normalized by that in No Perturbation, suggesting the enhancement more apparent when timing information was given. The SOL-MEP was not modulated even when perturbation was expected, but it slightly reduced due to the timing information. The results of an additional experiment confirmed that the acoustic cue by itself did not affect the TA- and SOL-MEPs. Our findings suggest that a prediction of a future state of standing balance modulates the corticospinal excitability in the TA, and that the additional timing information facilitates this modulation. The corticospinal pathway thus appears to be involved in mechanisms of the predictive control as well as feedback control of standing posture.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 15%
Researcher 3 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 8%
Student > Master 3 8%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 11 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 8 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 8%
Engineering 2 5%
Sports and Recreations 2 5%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 13 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 03 March 2018.
All research outputs
#6,930,455
of 23,020,670 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#2,900
of 7,192 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#121,022
of 330,056 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#69
of 141 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,020,670 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,192 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its peers.
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 330,056 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 141 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.