bioRxiv Science⌕ Search

Biology subjects

Waltzing, B. M.

Publications and source records attributed to Waltzing, B. M..

3 recordsLinked to original sources

Bilateral Intracortical Inhibition during Unilateral Motor Preparation and Sequence Learning

Motor sequence learning gradually quickens reaction time, suggesting that sequence learning alters motor preparation processes. Interestingly, evidence has shown that preparing sequence movements decreases short intracortical inhibition (SICI) in the contralateral motor cortex (M1), but also that sequence learning alters motor preparation processes in both the contralateral and ipsilateral M1s. Therefore, one possibility is that sequence learning alters the SICI decreases occurring during motor preparation in bilateral M1s. To examine this, two novel hypotheses were tested: unilateral sequence preparation would decrease SICI in bilateral M1s, and sequence learning would alter such bilateral SICI responses. Paired-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation was delivered over the contralateral and ipsilateral M1s to assess SICI in an index finger muscle during the preparation of sequences initiated by either the right index or little finger. In the absence of sequence learning, SICI decreased in both the contralateral and ipsilateral M1s during the preparation of sequences initiated by the right index finger, suggesting that SICI decreases in bilateral M1s during unilateral motor preparation. As sequence learning progressed, SICI decreased in the contralateral M1 whilst it increased in the ipsilateral M1. Moreover, these bilateral SICI responses were observed at the onset of motor preparation, suggesting that sequence learning altered baseline SICI levels rather than the SICI decreases occurring during motor preparation per se. Altogether, these results suggest that SICI responses in bilateral M1s reflect two motor processes: an acute decrease of inhibition during motor preparation, and a cooperative but bidirectional shift of baseline inhibition levels as sequence learning progresses.

neuroscience↗

Sub-Concussive Head Impacts From Heading Footballs Do Not Acutely Alter Brain Excitability As Compared to a Control Group

BackgroundRepeated sub-concussive head impacts are a growing brain health concern, but the possible mechanisms of trauma and plausible biomarkers remain elusive. One impediment is the lack of an experimental model to study the effects of sub-concussive head impacts on the brain. ObjectivesThis works objective was to provide an experimental model to study the acute effects of sub-concussive head impacts on the brain. To do so, this study aimed to replicate previous work from Di Virgilio et al. (2016) showing that head impacts from heading footballs acutely alter brain excitability by increasing corticomotor inhibition. MethodsScores from the Rivermead Post-Concussion Questionnaire and measurements of cortical silent period (CSP) duration - obtained using transcranial magnetic stimulation to assess corticomotor inhibition in the central nervous system - were taken before and after participants performed 20 football headings (Headings; n = 30) or control (Control; n = 30). ResultsThe results revealed increased headaches and dizziness symptoms in the Headings as compared to the Control group, revealing the qualitative experience of head impacts. The results then revealed that CSP duration similarly lengthened in both the Headings and Control groups, suggesting that head impacts did not cause the increased corticomotor inhibition. ConclusionsThe results show that head impacts from football headings did not acutely alter corticomotor inhibition as compared to a control group that did not experience head impacts, suggesting that excitability changes do not reflect acute sub-concussive brain injuries. Nonetheless, this work suggests that football headings can be used as an experimental model to study the effects of sub-concussive head impacts on brain health. Future work could use the present procedures to investigate additional biomarkers of brain injury.

neuroscience↗

Consistent Under-reporting of Task Details in Motor Imagery Research

Motor Imagery is a subject of longstanding scientific interest. However, critical details of motor imagery protocols are not always reported in full, hampering direct replication and translation of this work. The present review provides a quantitative assessment of the prevalence of under-reporting in the recent motor imagery literature. Publications from the years 2018-2020 were examined, with 695 meeting the inclusion criteria for further examination. Of these studies, 64% (445/695) did not provide information about the modality of motor imagery (i.e., kinesthetic, visual, or a mixture of both) used in the study. When visual or mixed imagery was specified, the details of the visual perspective to be used (i.e., first person, third person, or combinations of both) were not reported in 24% (25/103) of studies. Further analysis indicated that studies using questionnaires to assess motor imagery reported more information than those that did not. We conclude that studies using motor imagery consistently under-report key details of their protocols, which poses a significant problem for understanding, replicating, and translating motor imagery effects.

neuroscience↗