Cerebellar–Motor Cortex Connectivity: One or Two Different Networks?

Anterior–posterior (AP) and posterior–anterior (PA) pulses of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) over the primary motor cortex (M1) appear to activate distinct interneuron networks that contribute differently to two varieties of physiological plasticity and motor behaviors (Hamada et al., 2014). The AP network is thought to be more sensitive to online manipulation of cerebellar (CB) activity using transcranial direct current stimulation. Here we probed CB–M1 interactions using cerebellar brain inhibition (CBI) in young healthy female and male individuals. TMS over the cerebellum produced maximal CBI of PA-evoked EMG responses at an interstimulus interval of 5 ms (PA-CBI), whereas the maximum effect on AP responses was at 7 ms (AP-CBI), suggesting that CB–M1 pathways with different conduction times interact with AP and PA networks. In addition, paired associative stimulation using ulnar nerve stimulation and PA TMS pulses over M1, a protocol used in human studies to induce cortical plasticity, reduced PA-CBI but not AP-CBI, indicating that cortical networks process cerebellar inputs in distinct ways. Finally, PA-CBI and AP-CBI were differentially modulated after performing two different types of motor learning tasks that are known to process cerebellar input in different ways. The data presented here are compatible with the idea that applying different TMS currents to the cerebral cortex may reveal cerebellar inputs to both the premotor cortex and M1. Overall, these results suggest that there are two independent CB–M1 networks that contribute uniquely to different motor behaviors

Dynamic modulation of cerebellar excitability for abrupt, but not gradual, visuomotor adaptation

The cerebellum is critically important for error driven adaptive motor learning, as evidenced by the fact that cerebellar patients do not adapt well to sudden predictable perturbations. However, recent work has shown that cerebellar patients adapt much better if the perturbation is gradually introduced. Here we explore physiological mechanisms that underlie this distinction between abrupt and gradual motor adaptation in humans. We used Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) to evaluate whether neural mechanisms within the cerebellum contribute to either process during a visuomotor reach adaptation. When a visuomotor rotation was introduced abruptly, cerebellar excitability changed early in learning, and approached baseline levels near the end of the adaptation block. However, we observed no modulation of cerebellar excitability when we presented the visuomotor rotation gradually during learning. Similarly, we did not observe cerebellar modulation during trial-by-trial adaptation to random visuomotor displacements or during reaches without perturbations. This suggests that the cerebellum is most active during the early-phases of adaptation when large perturbations are successfully compensated

Variable Neural Contributions to Explicit and Implicit Learning During Visuomotor Adaptation

We routinely make fine motor adjustments to maintain optimal motor performance. These adaptations have been attributed to both implicit, error-based mechanisms, and explicit, strategy-based mechanisms. However, little is known about the neural basis of implicit vs. explicit learning. Here, we aimed to use anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to probe the relationship between different brain regions and learning mechanisms during a visuomotor adaptation task in humans. We hypothesized that anodal tDCS over the cerebellum (CB) should increase implicit learning while anodal tDCS over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC), a region associated with higher-level cognition, should facilitate explicit learning. Using a horizontal visuomotor adaptation task that measures explicit/implicit contributions to learning (Taylor et al., 2014), we found that dlPFC stimulation significantly improved performance compared to the other groups, and weakly increased explicit learning. However, CB stimulation had no effects on either target error or implicit learning. Previous work showed variable CB stimulation effects only on a vertical visuomotor adaptation task (Jalali et al., 2017), so in Experiment 2, we conducted the same study using a vertical context to see if we could find effects of CB stimulation. We found only weak effects of CB stimulation on target error and implicit learning, and now the dlPFC effect did not replicate. To resolve this discrepancy, in Experiment 3, we examined the effect of context (vertical vs. horizontal) on implicit and explicit contributions and found that individuals performed significantly worse and used greater implicit learning in the vertical screen condition compared to the horizontal screen condition. Across all experiments, however, there was high inter-individual variability, with strong influences of a few individuals, suggesting that these effects are not consistent across individuals. Overall, this work provides preliminary support for the idea that different neural regions can be engaged to improve visuomotor adaptation, but shows that each region's effects are highly context-dependent and not clearly dissociable from one another. This holds implications especially in neurorehabilitation, where an intact neural region could be engaged to potentially compensate if another region is impaired. Future work should examine factors influencing interindividual variability during these processes

Evidence for a subcortical origin of mirror movements after stroke: A longitudinal study

Following a stroke, mirror movements are unintended movements that appear in the non-paretic hand when the paretic hand voluntarily moves. Mirror movements have previously been linked to overactivation of sensorimotor areas in the non-lesioned hemisphere. In this study, we hypothesized that mirror movements might instead have a subcortical origin, and are the by-product of subcortical motor pathways upregulating their contributions to the paretic hand. To test this idea, we first characterized the time course of mirroring in 53 first-time stroke patients, and compared it to the time course of activities in sensorimotor areas of the lesioned and non-lesioned hemispheres (measured using functional MRI). Mirroring in the non-paretic hand was exaggerated early after stroke (Week 2), but progressively diminished over the year with a time course that parallelled individuation deficits in the paretic hand. We found no evidence of cortical overactivation that could explain the time course changes in behaviour, contrary to the cortical model of mirroring. Consistent with a subcortical origin of mirroring, we predicted that subcortical contributions should broadly recruit fingers in the non-paretic hand, reflecting the limited capacity of subcortical pathways in providing individuated finger control. We therefore characterized finger recruitment patterns in the non-paretic hand during mirroring. During mirroring, non-paretic fingers were broadly recruited, with mirrored forces in homologous fingers being only slightly larger (1.76 times) than those in non-homologous fingers. Throughout recovery, the pattern of finger recruitment during mirroring for patients looked like a scaled version of the corresponding control mirroring pattern, suggesting that the system that is responsible for mirroring in controls is upregulated after stroke. Together, our results suggest that post-stroke mirror movements in the non-paretic hand, like enslaved movements in the paretic hand, are caused by the upregulation of a bilaterally organized subcortical system

Rethinking interhemispheric imbalance as a target for stroke neurorehabilitation

© 2019 American Neurological Association Objective: Patients with chronic stroke have been shown to have failure to release interhemispheric inhibition (IHI) from the intact to the damaged hemisphere before movement execution (premovement IHI). This inhibitory imbalance was found to correlate with poor motor performance in the chronic stage after stroke and has since become a target for therapeutic interventions. The logic of this approach, however, implies that abnormal premovement IHI is causal to poor behavioral outcome and should therefore be present early after stroke when motor impairment is at its worst. To test this idea, in a longitudinal study, we investigated interhemispheric interactions by tracking patients’ premovement IHI for one year following stroke. Methods: We assessed premovement IHI and motor behavior five times over a 1-year period after ischemic stroke in 22 patients and 11 healthy participants. Results: We found that premovement IHI was normal during the acute/subacute period and only became abnormal at the chronic stage; specifically, release of IHI in movement preparation worsened as motor behavior improved. In addition, premovement IHI did not correlate with behavioral measures cross-sectionally, whereas the longitudinal emergence of abnormal premovement IHI from the acute to the chronic stage was inversely correlated with recovery of finger individuation. Interpretation: These results suggest that interhemispheric imbalance is not a cause of poor motor recovery, but instead might be the consequence of underlying recovery processes. These findings call into question the rehabilitation strategy of attempting to rebalance interhemispheric interactions in order to improve motor recovery after stroke. Ann Neurol 2019;85:502–513

Training in the practice of noninvasive brain stimulation: Recommendations from an IFCN committee

© 2020 As the field of noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) expands, there is a growing need for comprehensive guidelines on training practitioners in the safe and effective administration of NIBS techniques in their various research and clinical applications. This article provides recommendations on the structure and content of this training. Three different types of practitioners are considered (Technicians, Clinicians, and Scientists), to attempt to cover the range of education and responsibilities of practitioners in NIBS from the laboratory to the clinic. Basic or core competencies and more advanced knowledge and skills are discussed, and recommendations offered regarding didactic and practical curricular components. We encourage individual licensing and governing bodies to implement these guidelines

Non-invasive Brain Stimulation in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

The non-invasive brain stimulation techniques of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) have developed considerably over the last 25 years. Recent studies have used these techniques to enhance motor and cognitive function, modulate psychiatric symptoms, and reduce pain. Here, we briefly present TMS and tDCS techniques, discuss their safety, and provide examples of studies applying these interventions to enhance movement function following stroke. Though further studies are required, investigations so far provide important first steps in the use of non-invasive brain stimulation techniques to aid routine rehabilitation therapy. We discuss future directions for the field in terms of study development, choice of motor task, and target sites for stimulation

Reciprocal intralimb transfer of skilled isometric force production

Motor control theories propose that the same motor plans can be employed by different effectors (e.g., the hand and arm). Skills learned with one effector can therefore “transfer” to others, which has potential applications in clinical situations. However, evidence from adaptation suggests this effect is not reciprocal; learning can be generalized from proximal to distal effectors (e.g., arm to hand), but not from distal to proximal effectors (e.g., hand to arm). We propose that skill learning may not follow the same pattern, because it relies on multiple learning processes beyond error detection and correction. Participants learned a skill task involving the production of isometric forces. We assessed their ability to perform the task with the hand and arm. One group then trained to perform the task using only their hand, whereas a second group trained using only their arm. In a final assessment, we found that participants who trained with either effector improved their skill in performing the task with both their hand and arm. There was no change in a control group that did not train between assessments, indicating that gains were related to the training, not the multiple assessments. These results indicate that in contrast to adaptation, motor skills can generalize from both proximal to distal effectors and from distal to proximal effectors. We propose this is due to differences in the processes underlying skill acquisition as compared with adaptation

Mapping subcortical motor pathways in humans with startle-conditioned TMS

Subcortical motor pathways, such as the reticulospinal tract, are critical for producing and modulating voluntary movements and have been implicated in neurological conditions. Previous research has described the presence of ipsilateral motor evoked potentials (iMEPs) in the arm to transcranial magentic stimulation (TMS), and suggested they could be mediated by the uncrossed corticospinal tract or by ipsilateral cortico-reticulospinal connections. Here, we sought to elucidate the role of the reticulospinal tract in mediating iMEPs by assessing their modulation by a startling acoustic stimulus and mapping these responses across multiple upper limb effectors. In a first experiment, we delivered TMS at various intervals (1, 5, 10 and 15 ms) after a startling acoustic stimulus, known to excite the reticular formation, to elicit iMEPs in the arm. We observed robust facilitation of iMEP area when startle conditioning preceded TMS at the 10 ms interval. In a second experiment, we replicated our findings showing that both the area and number of iMEPs in the arm increases with startle conditioning. Using this technique, we observed that iMEPs are more prominent in the arm compared with the hand. In a third experiment, we also observed greater presence of iMEPs in flexor compared with extensor muscles. Together, these findings are consistent with properties of the reticulospinal tract observed in animals, suggesting that iMEPs primarily reflect reticulospinal activity. Our findings imply that we can use this approach to track modulation of cortico-reticulospinal excitability following interventions or neurological conditions where the reticulospinal tract may be involved in motor recovery