EMG responses to unexpected perturbations are delayed in slower movements.
It has previously been found that in fast point-to-point arm movements, proprioceptive feedback is centrally suppressed at the beginning of movement and is facilitated at a time that is correlated with temporal parameters of the planned movement. Here, we show that this correlation holds when subjects are explicitly instructed to move at less than maximal speed. We studied elbow flexion movements made at maximal speed and at 70% of maximal speed over a short distance against a light inertial load and over a long distance against a heavy inertial load. A small number of trials were unexpectedly perturbed by using a servo-controlled motor to decrease the movement velocity. The servo control was turned on early in the movement. The main novel finding is that responses in the surface EMG in the elbow muscles to the perturbation occurred later in the slow-speed conditions than fast-speed conditions. When viewed across all conditions, the onset of the EMG responses to the perturbation increased with the time to peak acceleration in unperturbed movements. In the inertial loaded movements, the time of peak acceleration coincides with the time of peak inertial torque, and so the observed correlation can be interpreted as reflecting the relation between either the planned movement kinematics or the planned movement dynamics. These results are compatible with a hypothesis that a descending command suppresses the proprioceptive feedback control at the movement onset and facilitates it at a time that depends on the time parameters of the planned movement.
David
Fabian J
FJ
Department of Kinesiology and Nutrition, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, USA. fabian.j.david@gmail.com
Poon
Cynthia
C
Niu
Chuanxin M
CM
Corcos
Daniel M
DM
Shapiro
Mark B
MB
D000054:Acceleration; D000328:Adult; D001132:Arm / Q000294:innervation / Q000502:physiology*; D001696:Biomechanical Phenomena / Q000502:physiology; D004576:Electromyography; D056344:Executive Function / Q000502:physiology; D056228:Feedback, Sensory / Q000502:physiology*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D009068:Movement / Q000502:physiology*; D009119:Muscle Contraction / Q000502:physiology; D018482:Muscle, Skeletal / Q000294:innervation / Q000502:physiology*; D009483:Neuropsychological Tests; D011597:Psychomotor Performance / Q000502:physiology*; D011930:Reaction Time / Q000502:physiology; D013997:Time Factors; D019415:Torque; D016474:Weight-Bearing / Q000502:physiology; D055815:Young Adult
J Neurophysiol. 2002 Aug;88(2):1059-63
12163554
J Neurosci. 1986 Nov;6(11):3309-18
3772433
J Neurophysiol. 2006 Dec;96(6):3130-46
16855111
J Neurophysiol. 1996 Jan;75(1):60-74
8822542
Neurosci Res. 1990 Jun;8(2):100-13
2170870
J Physiol. 1988 Aug;402:421-42
2976825
Exp Brain Res. 1998 Jan;118(1):35-51
9547076
Exp Brain Res. 2004 May;156(1):72-9
14689132
J Neurophysiol. 1989 Aug;62(2):358-68
2769335
J Mot Behav. 1993 Sep;25(3):153-161
12581986
Brain Res. 1981 Sep 14;220(2):350-5
7284760
Exp Brain Res. 1997 Aug;116(1):20-8
9305811
J Neurophysiol. 2004 May;91(5):2135-47
14724262
Exp Brain Res. 1984;55(3):523-7
6468556
Exp Brain Res. 2009 Jun;195(4):575-91
19434401
J Neurophysiol. 1989 Aug;62(2):342-57
2769334
J Neurophysiol. 2001 Aug;86(2):971-85
11495965
Prog Neurobiol. 1979;13(4):361-417
120558
J Neurophysiol. 1976 Jan;39(1):119-42
1249597
J Neurosci. 2006 Sep 6;26(36):9272-81
16957083
J Physiol. 1956 Apr 27;132(1):17-8P
13320395
Am J Physiol. 1966 May;210(5):1178-91
5947266
J Neurophysiol. 1980 Aug;44(2):233-46
7411184
Biophys J. 1967 Nov;7(6):853-63
19211001
J Physiol. 1979 Sep;294:33-50
512949
J Neurosci. 1989 Jan;9(1):134-48
2913200
Rev Neurosci. 2004;15(5):371-82
15575492
Exp Brain Res. 1993;96(2):347-62
8270027
Can J Neurol Sci. 1975 Aug;2(3):285-93
809129
J Neurophysiol. 1996 Nov;76(5):3207-29
8930267
Exp Brain Res. 1987;66(2):247-56
3595772
Exp Brain Res. 2004 Mar;155(2):156-72
14652705
Brain Res. 1986 Mar 5;367(1-2):287-91
3697703
J Neurophysiol. 1999 Mar;81(3):1045-56
10085332