Altered visual feedback modulates cortical excitability in a mirror-box-like paradigm
Watching self-generated unilateral hand movements reflected in a mirror–oriented along the midsagittal plane–enhances the excitability of the primary motor cortex (M1) ipsilateral to the moving hand of the observer. Mechanisms detecting sensory–motor conflicts generated by the mirror reflection of such movements might mediate this effect; if so, cortical excitability should be modulated by the magnitude of sensory–motor conflict. To this end, we explored the modulatory effects of an altered visual feedback on M1 excitability in a mirror-box-like paradigm, by increasing or decreasing the speed of the observed movement. Healthy subjects performed movements with their left index finger while watching a video of a hand superimposed to their right static hand, which was hidden from view. The hand observed in the video executed the same movement as the observer’s left hand, but at slower, same, or faster paces. Motor evoked potentials (MEPs) induced by transcranial magnetic stimulation were measured from the first dorsal interosseous and the abductor digiti minimi of the participant’s hidden resting hand. The excitability of the M1 ipsilateral to the moving hand was systematically modulated by the speed of the observed hand movement: the slower the observed movement, the greater the MEP amplitude from both muscles. This evidence shows that the magnitude of the visual–motor conflicts can be used to adjust the activity of the observer’s motor system. Hence, an appropriate alteration of the visual feedback, here the reduction in the movement speed, may be useful to increase its modulatory effect on motor cortical excitability.
KeywordsMirror box Visual feedback Transcranial magnetic stimulation Motor evoked potentials Visual–motor mismatch
The authors would like to thank Carlo Toneatto for technical assistance and Alessandro Moscatelli for helpful suggestions.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Brown H, Prescott R (2006) Applied mixed models in medicine. In: Barnett V (ed) Repeated measures data, 1st edn. Wiley, Chichester, pp 199–259Google Scholar
- Rossi S, Hallett M, Rossini PM, Pascual-Leone A, The Safety of TMS Consensus Group (2009) Safety, ethical considerations, and application guidelines for the use of transcranial magnetic stimulation in clinical practice and research. Clin Neurophysiol 120:2008–2039CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Rossini PM, Barker AT, Berardelli A, Caramia MD, Caruso G, Cracco RQ, Dimitrijević MR, Hallett M, Katayama Y, Lücking CH, Maertens de Noordhout AL, Marsden CD, Murray NMF, Rothwell JC, Swash M, Tomberg C (1994) Non-invasive electrical and magnetic stimulation of the brain, spinal cord and roots: basic principles and procedures for routine clinical application. Report of an IFCN committee. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 91:79–92CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Scully DM (1988) Visual perception of human movement: The use of demonstrations in teaching motor skills. Br J Phys Educ Res 4(suppl.):12–14Google Scholar
- Tunik E, Saleh S, Bagce H, Merians A, Adamovich SV (2011) Mirror feedback in virtual reality elicits ipsilesional motor cortex activation in chronic stroke patients. In: International Conference on Virtual Rehabilitation, Zurich, Switzerland. IEEE, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- Woodworth RS (1899) The accuracy of voluntary movement. Psychol Rev Monogr Suppl 3:1–119Google Scholar