Advertisement

Brain Structure and Function

, Volume 224, Issue 7, pp 2577–2586 | Cite as

Role of the supplementary motor area in auditory sensory attenuation

  • Han-Gue JoEmail author
  • Ute Habel
  • Stefan Schmidt
Short Communication
  • 413 Downloads

Abstract

Self-generated tones elicit smaller brain responses as compared to externally generated tones. This phenomenon known as sensory attenuation has been explained in terms of an internal forward model in which the brain predicts the upcoming events and thereby attenuates the sensory processing. Such prediction processes have been suggested to occur via an efference copy of the motor command that is sent from the motor system to the lower order sensory cortex. However, little is known about how the prediction is implemented in the brain’s network organization. Because the supplementary motor area (SMA) is a primary brain structure of the motor system, we attributed the implementation of the prediction to the SMA. To address this question, we examined generative network models for auditory ERPs. ERPs were evoked by either a self-generated or externally generated tone, while subjects were paying attention to their motor action or to the tone. The tone itself was the same throughout all conditions. The network models consisted of three subsets embedding alternative hypotheses of the hierarchical structures: (1) auditory fields of the temporal lobe, (2) adding connections to the SMA, and (3) adding prediction signal to the SMA. The model comparison revealed that all ERP responses were mediated by the network connections across the auditory cortex and the SMA. Importantly, the prediction signal to the SMA was required when the tone was self-generated irrespective of the attention factor, whereas the externally generated tone did not require the prediction. We discussed these results in the context of the predictive coding framework.

Keywords

Sensory attenuation Auditory system ERP DCM 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the International Research Training Group (IRTG 2150) of the German Research Foundation (DFG).

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of Ethics Committee of the University Medical Center Freiburg, Germany, and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

429_2019_1920_MOESM1_ESM.docx (247 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 246 kb)

References

  1. Baess P, Horváth J, Jacobsen T, Schröger E (2011) Selective suppression of self-initiated sounds in an auditory stream: an ERP study. Psychophysiology 48(9):1276–1283CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bäss P, Jacobsen T, Schröger E (2008) Suppression of the auditory N1 event-related potential component with unpredictable self-initiated tones: evidence for internal forward models with dynamic stimulation. Int J Psychophysiol 70(2):137–143CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Blakemore SJ, Wolpert D, Frith C (2000) Why can’t you tickle yourself? NeuroReport 11(11):11–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boly M, Garrido MI, Gosseries O, Bruno MA, Boveroux P, Schnakers C, Massimini M, Litvak V, Laureys S, Friston K (2011) Preserved feedforward but impaired top-down processes in the vegetative state. Science 332(6031):858–862CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Chennu S, Noreika V, Gueorguiev D, Shtyrov Y, Bekinschtein TA, Henson R (2016) Silent expectations: dynamic causal modeling of cortical prediction and attention to sounds that weren’t. J Neurosci 36(32):8305–8316CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. David O, Friston KJ (2003) A neural mass model for MEG/EEG: coupling and neuronal dynamics. Neuroimage 20(3):1743–1755CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. David O, Kiebel SJ, Harrison LM, Mattout J, Kilner JM, Friston KJ (2006) Dynamic causal modeling of evoked responses in EEG and MEG. Neuroimage 30:1255–1272CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Deiber MP, Honda M, Ibañez V, Sadato N, Hallett M (1999) Mesial motor areas in self-initiated versus externally triggered movements examined with fMRI: effect of movement type and rate. J Neurophysiol 81(6):3065–3077CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Delorme A, Makeig S (2004) EEGLAB: an open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis. J Neurosci Methods 134:9–21CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Dogge M, Schaap M, Custers R, Wegner DM, Aarts H (2012) When moving without volition: implied self-causation enhances binding strength between involuntary actions and effects. Conscious Cogn 21(1):501–506CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Engbert K, Wohlschläger A (2007) Intentions and expectations in temporal binding. Conscious Cogn 16(2):255–264CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Ford JM, Palzes VA, Roach BJ, Mathalon DH (2014) Did I do that? Abnormal predictive processes in schizophrenia when button pressing to deliver a tone. Schizophr Bull 40(4):804–812CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Fried I, Katz A, McCarthy G, Sass KJ, Williamson P, Spencer SS, Spencer DD (1991) Functional organization of human supplementary motor cortex studied by electrical stimulation. J Neurosci 11(11):3656–3666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Friston K (2005) A theory of cortical responses. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 360(1456):815–836CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Friston K, Harrison L, Daunizeau J, Kiebel S, Phillips C, Trujillo-Barreto N, Henson R, Flandin G, Mattout J (2008) Multiple sparse priors for the M/EEG inverse problem. Neuroimage 39(3):1104–1120CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Garrido MI, Kilner JM, Stephan KE, Friston KJ (2009) The mismatch negativity: a review of underlying mechanisms. Clin Neurophysiol 120(3):453–463CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Ghio M, Scharmach K, Bellebaum C (2018) ERP correlates of processing the auditory consequences of own versus observed actions. Psychophysiology 55(6):e13048CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Haggard P, Clark S, Kalogeras J (2002) Voluntary action and conscious awareness. Nat Neurosci 5:382–385CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Jansen BH, Rit VG (1995) Electroencephalogram and visual evoked potential generation in a mathematical model of coupled cortical columns. Biol Cybern 73(4):357–366CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Jo HG, Wittmann M, Hinterberger T, Schmidt S (2014) The readiness potential reflects intentional binding. Front Hum Neurosci 8:421CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Lau HC, Rogers RD, Haggard P, Passingham RE (2004) Attention to intention. Science 303(5661):1208–1210CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Libet B, Gleason CA, Wright EW, Pearl DK (1983) Time of conscious intention to act in relation to onset of cerebral activity (readiness-potential). The unconscious initiation of a freely voluntary act. Brain 106:623–642CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Lima CF, Krishnan S, Scott SK (2016) Roles of supplementary motor areas in auditory processing and auditory Imagery. Trends Neurosci 39(8):527–542CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Martikainen MH, Kaneko K, Hari R (2005) Suppressed responses to self-triggered sounds in the human auditory cortex. Cereb Cortex 15(3):299–302CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Moore J, Haggard P (2008) Awareness of action: inference and prediction. Conscious Cogn 17(1):136–144CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Moore JW, Ruge D, Wenke D, Rothwell J, Haggard P (2010) Disrupting the experience of control in the human brain: pre-supplementary motor area contributes to the sense of agency. Proc Biol Sci 277(1693):2503–2509CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Nachev P, Kennard C, Husain M (2008) Functional role of the supplementary and pre-supplementary motor areas. Nat Rev Neurosci 9(11):856–869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Opitz B, Rinne T, Mecklinger A, von Cramon DY, Schröger E (2001) Differential contribution of frontal and temporal cortices to auditory change detection: fMRI and ERP results. Neuroimage 1:167–174Google Scholar
  29. Penfield W, Welch K (1951) The supplementary motor area of the cerebral cortex; a clinical and experimental study. AMA Arch Neurol Psychiatry 66(3):289–317CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Penny WD, Stephan KE, Daunizeau J, Rosa MJ, Friston KJ, Schofield TM, Leff AP (2010) Comparing families of dynamic causal models. PLoS Comput Biol 6(3):e1000709CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Phillips HN, Blenkmann A, Hughes LE, Bekinschtein TA, Rowe JB (2015) Hierarchical organization of frontotemporal networks for the prediction of stimuli across multiple dimensions. J Neurosci 35(25):9255–9264CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Poonian SK, McFadyen J, Ogden J, Cunnington R (2015) Implicit agency in observed actions: evidence for N1 suppression of tones caused by self-made and observed actions. J Cogn Neurosci 27(4):752–764CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Rademacher J, Morosan P, Schormann T, Schleicher A, Werner C, Freund HJ, Zilles K (2002) Probabilistic mapping and volume measurement of human primary auditory cortex. Neuroimage 13(4):669–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Randeniya R, Oestreich LKL, Garrido MI (2018) Sensory prediction errors in the continuum of psychosis. Schizophr Res 191:109–122CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Reznik D, Ossmy O, Mukamel R (2015) Enhanced auditory evoked activity to self-generated sounds is mediated by primary and supplementary motor cortices. J Neurosci 35(5):2173–2180CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Ruan J, Bludau S, Palomero-Gallagher N, Caspers S, Mohlberg H, Eickhoff SB, Seitz RJ, Amunts K (2018) Cytoarchitecture, probability maps, and functions of the human supplementary and pre-supplementary motor areas. Brain Struct Funct 223(9):4169–4186CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. Sams M, Paavilainen P, Alho K, Näätänen R (1985) Auditory frequency discrimination and event-related potentials. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 6:437–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Saupe K, Widmann A, Trujillo-Barreto NJ, Schröger E (2013) Sensorial suppression of self-generated sounds and its dependence on attention. Int J Psychophysiol 90:300–310CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Schafer EW, Marcus MM (1973) Self-stimulation alters human sensory brain responses. Science 181(4095):175–177CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Schmidt S, Jo HG, Wittmann M, Hinterberger T (2016) ‘Catching the waves’—slow cortical potentials as moderator of voluntary action. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 68:639–650CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Shibasaki H, Hallett M (2006) What is the Bereitschaftspotential? Clin Neurophysiol 117(11):2341–2356CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Stephan KE, Penny WD, Moran RJ, den Ouden HE, Daunizeau J, Friston KJ (2010) Ten simple rules for dynamic causal modeling. Neuroimage 49(4):3099–3109CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. Timm J, SanMiguel I, Saupe K, Schröger E (2013) The N1-suppression effect for self-initiated sounds is independent of attention. BMC Neurosci 14:2CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. Timm J, SanMiguel I, Keil J, Schröger E, Schönwiesner M (2014) Motor intention determines sensory attenuation of brain responses to self-initiated sounds. J Cogn Neurosci 26(7):1481–1489CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Wolpe N, Haggard P, Siebner HR, Rowe JB (2013) Cue integration and the perception of action in intentional binding. Exp Brain Res 229(3):467–474CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. Wolpert DM, Ghahramani Z (2000) Computational principles of movement neuroscience. Nat Neurosci 3:1212–1217CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, Medical FacultyRWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany
  2. 2.JARA-Institute Brain Structure Function Relationship (INM-10)Research Center Juelich and RWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany
  3. 3.Department of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Medical Faculty, Medical CenterUniversity of FreiburgFreiburgGermany

Personalised recommendations