Abstract

There is now compelling evidence that motor imagery (MI) and actual movement share common neural substrate. However, the question of how MI inhibits the transmission of motor commands into the efferent pathways in order to prevent any movement is largely unresolved. Similarly, little is known about the nature of the electromyographic activity that is apparent during MI. In addressing these gaps in the literature, the present paper argues that MI includes motor execution commands for muscle contractions which are blocked at some level of the motor system by inhibitory mechanisms. We first assemble data from neuroimaging studies that demonstrate that the neural networks mediating MI and motor performance are not totally overlapping, thereby highlighting potential differences between MI and actual motor execution. We then review MI data indicating the presence of subliminal muscular activity reflecting the intrinsic characteristics of the motor command as well as increased corticomotor excitability. The third section not only considers the inhibitory mechanisms involved during MI but also examines how the brain resolves the problem of issuing the motor command for action while supervising motor inhibition when people engage in voluntary movement during MI. The last part of the paper draws on imagery research in clinical contexts to suggest that some patients move while imagining an action, although they are not aware of such movements. In particular, experimental data from amputees as well as from patients with Parkinson’s disease are discussed. We also review recent studies based on comparing brain activity in tetraplegic patients with that from healthy matched controls that provide insights into inhibitory processes during MI. We conclude by arguing that based on available evidence, a multifactorial explanation of motor inhibition during MI is warranted.

Highlights

  • One of the most remarkable capacities of the mind is its ability to simulate sensations, movements, and other types of experience

  • Surface EMG was monitored during fMRI recordings to confirm the absence of muscle activity during motor imagery No significant difference in the EMG signal between imagery and baseline conditions, showing that the patterns of cerebral activation during fMRI recordings are not due to movements No difference between baseline and imagined singing EMG recordings showed no change in muscle activity during scans compared to baseline levels No EMG activity during motor imagery Low EMG activity, which did not differ from the baseline, was a precondition before fMRI recordings No observable differences between motor imagery and rest

  • MOTOR INHIBITION Earlier in this paper, we showed that motor performance and motor imagery” (MI) are mediated by distinct neural networks, despite an extensive overlap between kinesthetic imagery (KI) and physical practice (PP)

Read more

Summary

INTRODUCTION

One of the most remarkable capacities of the mind is its ability to simulate sensations, movements, and other types of experience. TMS findings suggest that the motor system keeps the facilitation of the corticomotor pathways below the motor threshold, in spite of a highly actionspecific pattern of arousal These two ways of understanding motor inhibition during MI could represent different ways of analyzing a multimodal process: specific interactions between cerebral regions could result in the transmission of a residual motor command toward the descending volleys, whilst interactions between cerebral sites and/or spinal influences could keep corticospinal excitability below the motor threshold. Guillot et al (2007) observed significant increased pattern of EMG activity in all muscles of the arm, forearm, and even shoulder during MI of forearm flexion, when compared to the rest condition, while goniometric data did not reveal any movement The magnitude of this activation was correlated with the mental effort required to imagine lifting a weight. Clinical data from SCI, stroke, amputees, and PD patients converge to suggest that central patterns elicited during MI effectively reflect the internal elaboration of motor commands, specific clinical impairment provides different and complementary insights to our current knowledge regarding motor inhibition during MI

CONCLUSION
Method
Findings
Participants
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.