Inhibition during movement

preparation is sensitive to
response difculty
Ian Greenhouse
1
, Dylan Saks
1
, Timothy Hoang
1
, and Richard B Ivry
1

1
Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley
Introduction
TMS Procedure
Single-pulse TMS was delivered over
the right motor cortex.
Electromyography (EMG) was
recorded from the first dorsal
interosseous (FDI) and aductor digiti
minimi (ADM) muscles in both hands.
Motor evoked potentials (MEPs) were
measured from the left FDI at
baseline and during the preparatory
delay.
MEP peak-to-peak amplitude and
EMG burst onset were dependent
measures.
Methods
Results
1. Duque, J., Lew, D., Mazzocchio, R., Olivier, E., & Ivry, R. B. (2010). Evidence for two concurrent inhibitory mechanisms during response preparation. The Journal of Neuroscience, 30(10), 37933802.
2. Duque, J., Labruna, L., Verset, S., Olivier, E., & Ivry, R. B. (2012). Dissociating the Role of Prefrontal and Premotor Cortices in Controlling Inhibitory Mechanisms during Motor Preparation. The Journal of
Neuroscience, 32(3), 806816.
3. Verstynen, T., & Ivry, R. B. (2011). Network dynamics mediating ipsilateral motor cortex activity during unimanual actions. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(9), 24682480.
Conclusions
References
Motor inhibition during response preparation increases when choosing between difcult coordinated
actions (Exp 1), but is reduced when choosing between responses involving sequential actions (Exp 2).
Motor inhibition during response preparation is sensitive to the difculty of the response.
Background
-Two inhibitory mechanisms have been
implicated in response preparation:
1-2

1. Competition Resolution facilitates
the selection of a particular action by
suppressing non-selected response
representations.
2. Impulse Control prevents premature
response initiation by suppressing the
selected response representation.
-
Greater recruitment of ipsilateral motor
cortex is observed during the execution
of complex/difficult responses.
3

-
We predicted competition resolution
would involve greater inhibition of the
non-selected response option during a
choice between two hard versus two
easy responses.
-
We used transcranial magnetic
stimulation (TMS) to measure motor
excitability during the preparation of easy
and hard responses in the context of
both choice and simple response tasks.
Response
Fixation
Cue
ITI
Imperative
non
selected/
irrelevant
or
800 ms
post cue
baseline
TMS
selected/
relevant MEP
artifact
Experiment 2. Easy vs. Hard (Sequential) Experiment 1. Easy vs. Hard (Simultaneous)
EMG Onset Time (no TMS trials)
Predicted TMS Results
MEP Amplitude
Increased competition during preparation of coordinated hard responses
will result in more inhibition in a choice context, but not a simple context.
Preparation of sequential hard responses will not result in
increased inhibition relative to easy responses.
Experiment 2. Easy vs. Hard (Sequential)
Easy Responses Hard Responses
Experiment 1
Experiment 2
Easy responses involved a single effector. Hard responses involved two effectors.
Delayed Response Task: 4 simple RT and 4 choice RT blocks
-A bracket cued the hand to prepare (the cue was held constant for simple RT blocks).
-900 ms later a circle inside the bracket signaled execution of the prepared response.
Catch Trials: Imperative replaced by an X on 19% of trials, requiring no response.
1 2
or
or
or
2
or
simultaneous
sequential
MEP amplitude was signicantly smaller during the preparation of
hard simultaneous movements than during easy movements (p <
0.05), interacting with choice vs. simple RT at trend-level (p = 0.06).
MEP amplitude during the preparation of responses in simple RT
conditions was signicantly below baseline, but was not sensitive
to response di"culty or task relevance.
Inhibition for easy trials was greater than in Exp. 1 (p < 0.05),
possibly due to random variation or context of the hard condition.
In contrast to Exp. 1, MEP amplitude was larger during the
preparation of hard sequential than easy movements (p < 0.05).
As in Exp. 1, inhibition was observed in the simple RT
conditions independent of response di"culty and task relevance.
M
E
P

a
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

(
%

b
a
s
e
l
i
n
e
)
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
1.25
1.5
selected nonselected
Easy
Hard
Choice
M
E
P

a
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

(
%

b
a
s
e
l
i
n
e
)
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
1.25
1.5
relevant irrelevant
Easy
Hard
Simple
EMG onset latency tended to be larger for left than for right
responses (p = 0.08), but there was no e#ect of di"culty.
EMG onset latency showed no reliable di#erences as a function
of hand, di"culty, or between simple and choice RT conditions.
M
E
P

a
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

(
%

b
a
s
e
l
i
n
e
)
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
1.25
1.5
selected nonselected
Easy
Hard
Choice
M
E
P

a
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

(
%

b
a
s
e
l
i
n
e
)
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
1.25
1.5
relevant irrelevant
Easy
Hard
Simple
Experiment 1. Easy vs. Hard (Simultaneous)
n=12 n=9
4-4.5 s
600 ms
900 ms
300 ms