Cargando…

Long-latency Responses to a Mechanical Perturbation of the Index Finger Have a Spinal Component

In an uncertain external environment, the motor system may need to respond rapidly to an unexpected stimulus. Limb displacement causes muscle stretch; the corrective response has multiple activity bursts, which are suggested to originate from different parts of the neuraxis. The earliest response is...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Soteropoulos, Demetris S., Baker, Stuart N.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Society for Neuroscience 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7219296/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32245828
http://dx.doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1901-19.2020
_version_ 1783532967855915008
author Soteropoulos, Demetris S.
Baker, Stuart N.
author_facet Soteropoulos, Demetris S.
Baker, Stuart N.
author_sort Soteropoulos, Demetris S.
collection PubMed
description In an uncertain external environment, the motor system may need to respond rapidly to an unexpected stimulus. Limb displacement causes muscle stretch; the corrective response has multiple activity bursts, which are suggested to originate from different parts of the neuraxis. The earliest response is so fast, it can only be produced by spinal circuits; this is followed by slower components thought to arise from primary motor cortex (M1) and other supraspinal areas. Spinal cord (SC) contributions to the slower components are rarely considered. To address this, we recorded neural activity in M1 and the cervical SC during a visuomotor tracking task, in which 2 female macaque monkeys moved their index finger against a resisting motor to track an on-screen target. Following the behavioral trial, an increase in motor torque rapidly returned the finger to its starting position (lever velocity >200°/s). Many cells responded to this passive mechanical perturbation (M1: 148 of 211 cells, 70%; SC: 67 of 119 cells, 56%). The neural onset latency was faster for SC compared with M1 cells (21.7 ± 11.2 ms vs 25.5 ± 10.7 ms, respectively, mean ± SD). Using spike-triggered averaging, some cells in both regions were identified as likely premotor cells, with monosynaptic connections to motoneurons. Response latencies for these cells were compatible with a contribution to the muscle responses following the perturbation. Comparable fractions of responding neurons in both areas were active up to 100 ms after the perturbation, suggesting that both SC circuits and supraspinal centers could contribute to later response components. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Following a limb perturbation, multiple reflexes help to restore limb position. Given conduction delays, the earliest part of these reflexes can only arise from spinal circuits. By contrast, long-latency reflex components are typically assumed to originate from supraspinal centers. We recorded from both spinal and motor cortical cells in monkeys responding to index finger perturbations. Many spinal interneurons, including those identified as projecting to motoneurons, responded to the perturbation; the timing of responses was compatible with a contribution to both short- and long-latency reflexes. We conclude that spinal circuits also contribute to long-latency reflexes in distal and forearm muscles, alongside supraspinal regions, such as the motor cortex and brainstem.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7219296
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Society for Neuroscience
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-72192962020-05-13 Long-latency Responses to a Mechanical Perturbation of the Index Finger Have a Spinal Component Soteropoulos, Demetris S. Baker, Stuart N. J Neurosci Research Articles In an uncertain external environment, the motor system may need to respond rapidly to an unexpected stimulus. Limb displacement causes muscle stretch; the corrective response has multiple activity bursts, which are suggested to originate from different parts of the neuraxis. The earliest response is so fast, it can only be produced by spinal circuits; this is followed by slower components thought to arise from primary motor cortex (M1) and other supraspinal areas. Spinal cord (SC) contributions to the slower components are rarely considered. To address this, we recorded neural activity in M1 and the cervical SC during a visuomotor tracking task, in which 2 female macaque monkeys moved their index finger against a resisting motor to track an on-screen target. Following the behavioral trial, an increase in motor torque rapidly returned the finger to its starting position (lever velocity >200°/s). Many cells responded to this passive mechanical perturbation (M1: 148 of 211 cells, 70%; SC: 67 of 119 cells, 56%). The neural onset latency was faster for SC compared with M1 cells (21.7 ± 11.2 ms vs 25.5 ± 10.7 ms, respectively, mean ± SD). Using spike-triggered averaging, some cells in both regions were identified as likely premotor cells, with monosynaptic connections to motoneurons. Response latencies for these cells were compatible with a contribution to the muscle responses following the perturbation. Comparable fractions of responding neurons in both areas were active up to 100 ms after the perturbation, suggesting that both SC circuits and supraspinal centers could contribute to later response components. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Following a limb perturbation, multiple reflexes help to restore limb position. Given conduction delays, the earliest part of these reflexes can only arise from spinal circuits. By contrast, long-latency reflex components are typically assumed to originate from supraspinal centers. We recorded from both spinal and motor cortical cells in monkeys responding to index finger perturbations. Many spinal interneurons, including those identified as projecting to motoneurons, responded to the perturbation; the timing of responses was compatible with a contribution to both short- and long-latency reflexes. We conclude that spinal circuits also contribute to long-latency reflexes in distal and forearm muscles, alongside supraspinal regions, such as the motor cortex and brainstem. Society for Neuroscience 2020-05-13 /pmc/articles/PMC7219296/ /pubmed/32245828 http://dx.doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1901-19.2020 Text en Copyright © 2020 Soteropoulos and Baker https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium provided that the original work is properly attributed.
spellingShingle Research Articles
Soteropoulos, Demetris S.
Baker, Stuart N.
Long-latency Responses to a Mechanical Perturbation of the Index Finger Have a Spinal Component
title Long-latency Responses to a Mechanical Perturbation of the Index Finger Have a Spinal Component
title_full Long-latency Responses to a Mechanical Perturbation of the Index Finger Have a Spinal Component
title_fullStr Long-latency Responses to a Mechanical Perturbation of the Index Finger Have a Spinal Component
title_full_unstemmed Long-latency Responses to a Mechanical Perturbation of the Index Finger Have a Spinal Component
title_short Long-latency Responses to a Mechanical Perturbation of the Index Finger Have a Spinal Component
title_sort long-latency responses to a mechanical perturbation of the index finger have a spinal component
topic Research Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7219296/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32245828
http://dx.doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1901-19.2020
work_keys_str_mv AT soteropoulosdemetriss longlatencyresponsestoamechanicalperturbationoftheindexfingerhaveaspinalcomponent
AT bakerstuartn longlatencyresponsestoamechanicalperturbationoftheindexfingerhaveaspinalcomponent