Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26224853›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience2015

Nonspecific Inhibition of the Motor System during Response Preparation.

Ian Greenhouse, Ana Sias, Ludovica Labruna, Richard B Ivry

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 68 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
68citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

68 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Catecholaminergic Modulation of Conflict Control Depends on the Source of Conflicts.The international journal of neuropsychopharmacology · 2018
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

8 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Ian GreenhouseDepartment of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California 94720 igreenhouse@berkeley.edu.
Ana SiasDepartment of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California 94720.
Ludovica LabrunaDepartment of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California 94720.
Richard B IvryDepartment of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California 94720.

Funding

Neural Mechanisms Underlying Hand Choice for Unimanual ActionR01NS074917 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY · PI IVRY, RICHARD · 2012 to 2016
$1.6M
Relationship of Prefrontal GABA to Inhibitory Mechanisms for Response PreparationR21NS085570 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY · PI IVRY, RICHARD · 2013 to 2014
$389k
NINDS NIH HHS NS0085570NINDS NIH HHS NS074917NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS074917NINDS NIH HHS R21 NS085570
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Motor system excitability is transiently inhibited during the preparation of responses. Previous studies have attributed this inhibition to the operation of two mechanisms, one hypothesized to help resolve competition between alternative response options, and the other to prevent premature response initiation. By this view, inhibition should be restricted to task-relevant muscles. Although this prediction is supported in one previous study (Duque et al., 2010), studies of stopping ongoing actions suggest that some forms of motor inhibition may be widespread (Badry et al., 2009). This motivated us to conduct a series of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) experiments to examine in detail the specificity of preparatory inhibition in humans. Motor-evoked potentials were inhibited in task-irrelevant muscles during response preparation, even when the muscles were contralateral and not homologous to the responding effector. Inhibition was also observed in both choice and simple response task conditions, with and without a preparatory interval. Control experiments ruled out that this inhibition is due to expectancy of TMS or a possible need to cancel the prepared response. These findings suggest that motor inhibition during response preparation broadly influences the motor system and likely reflects a process that occurs whenever a response is selected. We propose a reinterpretation of the functional significance of preparatory inhibition, one by which inhibition reduces noise to enhance signal processing and modulates the gain of a selected response. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: Motor preparation entails the recruitment of excitatory and inhibitory neural mechanisms. The current experiments address the specificity of inhibitory mechanisms, asking whether preparatory inhibition affects task-irrelevant muscles. Participants prepared a finger movement to be executed at the end of a short delay period. Transcranial magnetic stimulation over primary motor cortex provided an assay of corticospinal excitability. Consistent with earlier work, the agonist muscle for the forthcoming response was inhibited during the preparatory period. Moreover, this inhibition was evident in task-irrelevant muscles, although the magnitude of inhibition depended on whether the response was fixed or involved a choice. These results implicate a broadly tuned inhibitory mechanism that facilitates response preparation, perhaps by lowering background activity before response initiation.

Indexed as

ElectromyographyEvoked Potentials, MotorFemaleHumansMaleMotor CortexNeural InhibitionPsychomotor PerformanceReaction TimeTranscranial Direct Current StimulationTranscranial Magnetic StimulationYoung Adultaction selectiondecision-makinggain modulationinhibitionresponse preparationtranscranial magnetic stimulation

Identifiers

PMID26224853
PMCPMC4518047

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.