Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32581737›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in behavioral neuroscience2020

Distinct Neural Correlates Underlie Inhibitory Mechanisms of Motor Inhibition and Motor Imagery Restraint.

Peter E Yoo, Thomas J Oxley, Maureen A Hagan, Sam John, Stephen M Ronayne, Gil S Rind, Alexander M Brinded, Nicholas L Opie, Bradford A Moffat, Yan T Wong

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Peter E YooVascular Bionics Laboratory, Department of Medicine, Royal Melbourne Hospital, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
Thomas J OxleyVascular Bionics Laboratory, Department of Medicine, Royal Melbourne Hospital, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
Maureen A HaganDepartment of Physiology, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Sam JohnVascular Bionics Laboratory, Department of Medicine, Royal Melbourne Hospital, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
Stephen M RonayneVascular Bionics Laboratory, Department of Medicine, Royal Melbourne Hospital, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
Gil S RindVascular Bionics Laboratory, Department of Medicine, Royal Melbourne Hospital, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
Alexander M BrindedSt. Vincent's Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Nicholas L OpieVascular Bionics Laboratory, Department of Medicine, Royal Melbourne Hospital, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
Bradford A MoffatDepartment of Anatomy and Neuroscience, The University of Melbourne, Kenneth Myer Building, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
Yan T WongDepartment of Physiology, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
University of Melbourne · AUFlorey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health · AUMonash University · AUThe Royal Melbourne Hospital · AUSt Vincent's Hospital · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is evidence to suggest that motor execution and motor imagery both involve planning and execution of the same motor plan, however, in the latter the output is inhibited. Currently, little is known about the underlying neural mechanisms of motor output inhibition during motor imagery. Uncovering the distinctive characteristics of motor imagery may help us better understand how we abstract complex thoughts and acquire new motor skills. The current study aimed to dissociate the cognitive processes involved in two distinct inhibitory mechanisms of motor inhibition and motor imagery restraint. Eleven healthy participants engaged in an imagined GO/NO-GO task during a 7 Tesla fMRI experiment. Participants planned a specific type of motor imagery, then, imagined the movements during the GO condition and restrained from making a response during the NO-GO condition. The results revealed that specific sub-regions of the supplementary motor cortex (SMC) and the primary motor cortex (M1) were recruited during the imagination of specific movements and information flowed from the SMC to the M1. Such condition-specific recruitment was not observed when motor imagery was restrained. Instead, general recruitment of the posterior parietal cortex (PPC) was observed, while the BOLD activity in the SMC and the M1 decreased below the baseline at the same time. Information flowed from the PPC to the SMC, and recurrently between the M1 and the SMC, and the M1 and the PPC. These results suggest that motor imagery involves task-specific motor output inhibition partly imposed by the SMC to the M1, while the PPC globally inhibits motor plans before they are passed on for execution during the restraint of responses.

Indexed as

fMRIinhibitionmotormotor imagerymotor network

Identifiers

PMID32581737
PMCPMC7289151
OpenAlexW3033451458

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.