Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 196, Issue 4, pp 529–535 | Cite as

Influence of touching an object on corticospinal excitability during motor imagery

  • Nobuaki Mizuguchi
  • Masanori Sakamoto
  • Tetsuro Muraoka
  • Kazuyuki Kanosue
Research Article

Abstract

We investigated whether corticospinal excitability during the imagery of an action involving an external object was influenced by actually touching the object. Corticospinal excitability was assessed by monitoring motor evoked potentials (MEPs) in the first dorsal interosseous muscle following transcranial magnetic stimulation over the motor cortex during imagery of squeezing a ball—with or without passively holding the ball. The MEPs amplitude during imagery when the ball was held was larger than that when the ball was not held. The MEPs amplitude was not modulated just by holding the ball. In the same experimental condition, the somatosensory evoked potentials (SEPs) in response to the stimulation of median nerve were not modulated by motor imagery or by holding the ball. These results suggest that the corticospinal excitability during imagery of squeezing a ball is enhanced with the real touch of the ball, and the enhancement would be caused by some changes along the corticospinal pathway itself and not by the change in responsiveness along the afferent pathway to the primary somatosensory cortex.

Keywords

Motor imagery Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) Motor evoked potentials (MEPs) Somatosensory evoked potentials (SEPs) 

References

  1. Allison T, McCarthy G, Wood CC, Jones SJ (1991) Potentials evoked in human and monkey cerebral cortex by stimulation of median nerve: a review of scalp and intracranial recordings. Brain 144:2465–2503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Carello C, Kinsella-Shaw J, Amazeen EL, Turvey MT (2006) Peripheral neuropathy and object length perception by effortful (dynamic) touch: a case study. Neurosci Lett 405:159–163PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Castiello U, Bennett KM, Egan GF, Tochon-Danguy HJ, Kritikos A, Dunai J (2000) Human inferior parietal cortex ‘programs’ the action class of grasping. J Cogn Systems Res 1:89–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cheron G, Borenstein S (1991) Gating of the early components of the frontal and parietal SEPs in different sensory-motor interference modalities. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 80:522–530PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cheron G, Borenstein S (1992) Mental movement simulation affects the N30 frontal component of the somatosensory evoked potential. Electroenceph Clin Neurophysiol 84:288–292PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cheron G, Dan B, Borenstein S (2000) Sensory and motor interfering influences on somatosensory evoked potentials. J Clin Neurophysiol 17:280–294PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Creem SH, Proffitt DR (2001) Grasping objects by their handles: a necessary interaction between cognition and action. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 27:218–228PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fadiga L, Buccino G, Craighero L, Fogassi L, Gallese V, Pavesi G (1999) Corticospinal excitability is specifically modulated by motor imagery: a magnetic stimulation study. Neuropsychologia 37:147–158PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fourkas AD, Bonavolonta V, Avenanti A, Aglioti SM (2008) Kinesthetic imagery and tool-specific modulation of corticospinal representations in expert tennis players. Cereb Cortex 18:2382–2390PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Grezes J, Tucker M, Armony J, Ellis R, Passingham RE (2003) Object automatically potentiate action: an fMRI study of implicit processing. Eur J NeuroSci 17:2735–2740PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hashimoto R, Rothwell JC (1999) Dynamic changes in corticospinal excitability during motor imagery. Exp Brain Res 125:75–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Isaac AR (1992) Mental practice—does it work in the field? Sport Psychol 6:192–198Google Scholar
  13. Jenmalm P, Dahlstedt S, Johansson RS (2000) Visual and tactile information about object-curvature control fingertip forces and grasp kinematics in human dexterous manipulation. J Neurophysiol 84:2984–2997PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Kaelin-Lang A, Luft AR, Sawaki L, Burstein AH, Sohn YH, Cohen LG (2002) Modulation of human corticomotor excitability by somatosensory input. J Physiol 540:623–633PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kakigi R, Jones SJ (1985) Effects on median nerve SEPs of tactile stimulation applied to adjacent and remote areas of the body surface. Electroenceph Clin Neurophysiol 62:252–265PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kasai T, Kawai S, Kawanishi M, Yahagi S (1997) Evidence for facilitation of motor evoked potentials (MEPs) induced by motor imagery. Brain Res 744:147–150PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Li S, Latash ML, Zatsiorsky VM (2004) Effects of motor imagery on finger force responses to transcranial magnetic stimulation. Cogn Brain Res 20:273–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McAvinue LP, Robertson IH (2008) Measuring motor imagery ability: a review. Eur J Cogn Psychol 20:232–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mercier C, Aballea A, Vargas CD, Paillard J, Sirigu A (2008) Vision without proprioception modulates cortico-spinal excitability during hand motor imagery. Cereb Cortex 18:272–277PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nakata H, Inui K, Wasaka T, Nishihira Y, Kakigi R (2003) Mechanisms of differences in gating effects on short- and long-latency somatosensory evoked potentials relating to movement. Brain Topogr 15:211–222PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pascual-Leone A, Dang N, Cohen LG, Brasil-Neto JP, Cammarota A, Hallett M (1995) Modulation of muscle responses evoked by transcranial magnetic stimulation during the acquisition of new fine motor skills. J Neurophysiol 74:1037–1045PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Ridding MC, Brouwer B, Miles TS, Pitcher JB, Thompson PD (2000) Changes in muscle responses to stimulation of the motor cortex induced by peripheral nerve stimulation in human subjects. Exp Brain Res 131:135–143PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rizzolatti G, Craighero L (2004) The mirror-neuron system. Annu Rev Neurosci 27:169–192PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Stevens JA, Stoykov ME (2003) Using motor imagery in the rehabilitation of hemiparesis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 84:1090–1092PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Umilta MA, Kohler E, Gallese V, Fogassi L, Fadiga L, Keysers C, Rizzolatti G (2001) I know what you are doing: a neurophysiological study. Neuron 31:155–165PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Vargas CD, Olivier E, Craighero L, Fadiga L, Duhamel JR, Sirigu A (2004) The influence of hand posture on corticospinal excitability during motor imagery: a transcranial magnetic stimulation study. Cereb Cortex 14:1200–1206PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Yahagi S, Kasai T (1998) Facilitation of motor evoked potentials (MEPs) in first dorsal interosseous (FDI) muscle is dependent on different motor images. Electroenceph Clin Neurophysiol 109:409–417PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nobuaki Mizuguchi
    • 1
  • Masanori Sakamoto
    • 2
  • Tetsuro Muraoka
    • 3
  • Kazuyuki Kanosue
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Graduate School of Sport SciencesWaseda UniversityTokorozawaJapan
  2. 2.Faculty of Sport SciencesWaseda UniversityTokorozawaJapan
  3. 3.Consolidated Research Institute for Advanced Science and Medical CareWaseda UniversityTokorozawaJapan

Personalised recommendations