Dissecting two distinct interneuronal networks in M1 with transcranial magnetic stimulation

Interactions from both inhibitory and excitatory interneurons are necessary components of cortical processing that contribute to the vast amount of motor actions executed by humans daily. As transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) over primary motor cortex is capable of activating corticospinal neurons trans-synaptically, studies over the past 30 years have provided how subtle changes in stimulation parameters (i.e., current direction, pulse width, and paired-pulse) can elucidate evidence for two distinct neuronal networks that can be probed with this technique. This article provides a brief review of some fundamental studies demonstrating how these networks have separable excitatory inputs to corticospinal neurons. Furthermore, the findings of recent investigations will be discussed in detail, illustrating how each network’s sensitivity to different brain states (i.e., rest, movement preparation, and motor learning) is dissociable. Understanding the physiological characteristics of each network can help to explain why interindividual responses to TMS exist, while also providing insights into the role of these networks in various human motor behaviors

Multiple Motor Learning Processes in Humans: Defining Their Neurophysiological Bases

Learning new motor behaviors or adjusting previously learned actions to account for dynamic changes in our environment requires the operation of multiple distinct motor learning processes, which rely on different neuronal substrates. For instance, humans are capable of acquiring new motor patterns via the formation of internal model representations of the movement dynamics and through positive reinforcement. In this review, we will discuss how changes in human physiological markers, assessed with noninvasive brain stimulation techniques from distinct brain regions, can be utilized to provide insights toward the distinct learning processes underlying motor learning. We will summarize the findings from several behavioral and neurophysiological studies that have made efforts to understand how distinct processes contribute to and interact when learning new motor behaviors. In particular, we will extensively review two types of behavioral processes described in human sensorimotor learning: (1) a recalibration process of a previously learned movement and (2) acquiring an entirely new motor control policy, such as learning to play an instrument. The selected studies will demonstrate in-detail how distinct physiological mechanisms contributions change depending on the time course of learning and the type of behaviors being learned

Temporal dynamics of cerebellar and motor cortex physiological processes during motor skill learning

Learning motor tasks involves distinct physiological processes in the cerebellum (CB) and primary motor cortex (M1). Previous studies have shown that motor learning results in at least two important neurophysiological changes: modulation of cerebellar output mediated in-part by long-term depression of parallel fiber-Purkinje cell synapse and induction of long-term plasticity (LTP) in M1, leading to transient occlusion of additional LTP-like plasticity. However, little is known about the temporal dynamics of these two physiological mechanisms during motor skill learning. Here we use non-invasive brain stimulation to explore CB and M1 mechanisms during early and late motor skill learning in humans. We predicted that early skill acquisition would be proportional to cerebellar excitability (CBI) changes, whereas later stages of learning will result in M1 LTP-like plasticity modifications. We found that early, and not late into skill training, CBI changed. Whereas, occlusion of LTP-like plasticity over M1 occurred only during late, but not early training. These findings indicate a distinct temporal dissociation in the physiological role of the CB and M1 when learning a novel skill. Understanding the role and temporal dynamics of different brain regions during motor learning is critical to device optimal interventions to augment learning

Modulating motor learning through transcranial direct-current stimulation: An integrative view

Motor learning consists of the ability to improve motor actions through practice playing a major role in the acquisition of skills required for high-performance sports or motor function recovery after brain lesions. During the last decades, it has been reported that transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS), consisting in applying weak direct current through the scalp, is able of inducing polarity-specific changes in the excitability of cortical neurons. This low-cost, painless and well-tolerated portable technique has found a wide-spread use in the motor learning domain where it has been successfully applied to enhance motor learning in healthy individuals and for motor recovery after brain lesion as well as in pathological states associated to motor deficits. The main objective of this mini-review is to offer an integrative view about the potential use of tDCS for human motor learning modulation. Furthermore, we introduce the basic mechanisms underlying immediate and long-term effects associated to tDCS along with important considerations about its limitations and progression in recent years

Combining reward and M1 transcranial direct current stimulation enhances the retention of newly learnt sensorimotor mappings

Background: Reward-based feedback given during motor learning has been shown to improve the retention of the behaviour being acquired. Interestingly, applying transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) during learning over the primary motor cortex (M1), an area associated with motor retention, also results in enhanced retention of the newly formed motor memories. However, it remains unknown whether combining these distinct interventions result in an additive benefit of motor retention. Methods: We investigated whether combining both interventions while participants learned to account for a visuomotor transformation results in enhanced motor retention (total n = 56; each group n = 14). To determine whether these interventions share common physiological mechanisms underpinning learning, we assessed motor cortical excitability and inhibition (i.e. SICI) on a hand muscle before and after all participants learned the visuomotor rotation using their entire arm and hand. Results: We found that both the Reward-Stim (i.e. reward + tDCS) and Reward-Sham (i.e. reward-only) groups had increased retention at the beginning of the retention phase, indicating an immediate effect of reward on behaviour. However, each intervention on their own did not enhance retention when compared to sham, but rather, only the combination of both reward and tDCS demonstrated prolonged retention. We also found that only the Reward-Stim group had a significant reduction in SICI after exposure to the perturbation. Conclusions: We show that combining both interventions are additive in providing stronger retention of motor adaptation. These results indicate that the reliability and validity of using tDCS within a clinical context may depend on the type of feedback individuals receive when learning a new motor pattern

Frequency-dependent modulation of cerebellar excitability during the application of non-invasive alternating current stimulation

Background: it is well-known that the cerebellum is critical for the integrity of motor and cognitive actions. Applying non-invasive brain stimulation techniques over this region results in neurophysiological and behavioural changes, which have been associated with the modulation of cerebellar-cerebral cortex connectivity. Here, we investigated whether online application of cerebellar transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) results in changes to this pathway. Methods: thirteen healthy individuals participated in two sessions of cerebellar tACS delivered at different frequencies (5Hz and 50Hz). We used transcranial magnetic stimulation to measure cerebellar-motor cortex (M1) inhibition (CBI), short-intracortical inhibition (SICI) and short-afferent inhibition (SAI) before, during and after the application of tACS. Results: we found that CBI was specifically strengthened during the application of 5Hz cerebellar tACS. No changes were detected immediately following the application of 5Hz stimulation, nor at any time point with 50Hz stimulation. We also found no changes to M1 intracortical circuits (i.e. SICI) or sensorimotor interaction (i.e. SAI), indicating that the effects of 5Hz tACS over the cerebellum are site-specific. Conclusions: cerebellar tACS can modulate cerebellar excitability in a time- and frequency-dependent manner. Additionally, cerebellar tACS does not appear to induce any long-lasting effects (i.e. plasticity), suggesting that stimulation enhances oscillations within the cerebellum only throughout the stimulation period. As such, cerebellar tACS may have significant implications for diseases manifesting with abnormal cerebellar oscillatory activity and also for future behavioural studies

Cerebellar–M1 connectivity changes associated with motor learning are somatotopic specific

One of the functions of the cerebellum in motor learning is to predict and account for systematic changes to the body or environment. This form of adaptive learning is mediated by plastic changes occurring within the cerebellar cortex. The strength of cerebellar-to-cerebral pathways for a given muscle may reflect aspects of cerebellum-dependent motor adaptation. These connections with motor cortex (M1) can be estimated as cerebellar inhibition (CBI): a conditioning pulse of transcranial magnetic stimulation delivered to the cerebellum before a test pulse over motor cortex. Previously, we have demonstrated that changes in CBI for a given muscle representation correlate with learning a motor adaptation task with the involved limb. However, the specificity of these effects is unknown. Here, we investigated whether CBI changes in humans are somatotopy specific and how they relate to motor adaptation. We found that learning a visuomotor rotation task with the right hand changed CBI, not only for the involved first dorsal interosseous of the right hand, but also for an uninvolved right leg muscle, the tibialis anterior, likely related to inter-effector transfer of learning. In two follow-up experiments, we investigated whether the preparation of a simple hand or leg movement would produce a somatotopy-specific modulation of CBI. We found that CBI changes only for the effector involved in the movement. These results indicate that learning-related changes in cerebellar– M1 connectivity reflect a somatotopy-specific interaction. Modulation of this pathway is also present in the context of interlimb transfer of learning

Cerebellar transcranial magnetic stimulation: The role of coil type from distinct manufacturers

BACKGROUND: Stimulating the cerebellum with transcranial magnetic stimulation is often perceived as uncomfortable. No study has systematically tested which coil design can effectively trigger a cerebellar response with the least discomfort. OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship between perceived discomfort and effectiveness of cerebellar stimulation using different coils: MagStim (70 mm, 110 mm-coated, 110-uncoated), MagVenture and Deymed. METHODS: Using the cerebellar-brain inhibition (CBI) protocol, we conducted a CBI recruitment curve with respect to each participant's maximum tolerated-stimulus intensity (MTI) to assess how effective each coil was at activating the cerebellum. RESULTS: Only the Deymed double-cone coil elicited CBI at low intensities (-20% MTI). At the MTI, the MagStim (110 mm coated/uncoated) and Deymed coils produced reliable CBI, whereas no CBI was found with the MagVenture coil. CONCLUSION: s: The Deymed double-cone coil was most effective at cerebellar stimulation at tolerable intensities. These results can guide coil selection and stimulation parameters when designing cerebellar TMS studies