Lowenthal-Raz, J., Liebermann, D. G., Friedman, J., & Soroker, N. (2024). Kinematic descriptors of arm reaching movement are sensitive to hemisphere-specific immediate neuromodulatory effects of transcranial direct current stimulation post stroke. Sci Rep, 14(1), 11971.
Abstract: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) exerts beneficial effects on motor recovery after stroke, presumably by enhancement of adaptive neural plasticity. However, patients with extensive damage may experience null or deleterious effects with the predominant application mode of anodal (excitatory) stimulation of the damaged hemisphere. In such cases, excitatory stimulation of the non-damaged hemisphere might be considered. Here we asked whether tDCS exerts a measurable effect on movement quality of the hemiparetic upper limb, following just a single treatment session. Such effect may inform on the hemisphere that should be excited. Using a single-blinded crossover experimental design, stroke patients and healthy control subjects were assessed before and after anodal, cathodal and sham tDCS, each provided during a single session of reaching training (repeated point-to-point hand movement on an electronic tablet). Group comparisons of endpoint kinematics at baseline-number of peaks in the speed profile (NoP; smoothness), hand-path deviations from the straight line (SLD; accuracy) and movement time (MT; speed)-disclosed greater NoP, larger SLD and longer MT in the stroke group. NoP and MT revealed an advantage for anodal compared to sham stimulation of the lesioned hemisphere. NoP and MT improvements under anodal stimulation of the non-lesioned hemisphere correlated positively with the severity of hemiparesis. Damage to specific cortical regions and white-matter tracts was associated with lower kinematic gains from tDCS. The study shows that simple descriptors of movement kinematics of the hemiparetic upper limb are sensitive enough to demonstrate gain from neuromodulation by tDCS, following just a single session of reaching training. Moreover, the results show that tDCS-related gain is affected by the severity of baseline motor impairment, and by lesion topography.
|
Liebermann, D. G. (2008). Biomechanical aspects of motor control in human landing. In R. Bartlett, & Y. Hong (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Biomechanics and Human Movement Science. Routledge Ltd.
|
Salzer, Y., & Friedman, J. (2020). Reaching trajectories unravel modality-dependent temporal dynamics of the automatic process in the Simon task: a model-based approach. Psychol Res, 84(6), 1700–1713.
Abstract: The Simon effect represents a phenomenon in which the location of the stimuli affects the speed and accuracy of the response, despite being irrelevant for the task demands. This is believed to be due to an automatic activation of a response corresponding to the location of the stimuli, which conflicts with the controlled decision process based on relevant stimuli features. Previously, differences in the nature of the Simon effect (i.e., the pattern of change of the effect across the distribution of response times) between visual and somatosensory stimuli were reported. We hypothesize that the temporal dynamics of visual and somatosensory automatic and controlled processes vary, thus driving the reported behavioral differences. While most studies have used response times to study the underlying mechanisms involved, in this study we had participants reach out to touch the targets and recorded their arm movements using a motion capture system. Importantly, the participants started their movements before a final decision was made. In this way, we could analyze the movements to gain insights into the competition between the automatic and controlled processes. We used this technique to describe the results in terms of a model assuming automatic activation due to location-based evidence, followed by inhibition. We found that for the somatosensory Simon effect, the decay of the automatic process is significantly slower than for the visual Simon effect, suggesting quantitative differences in this automatic process between the visual and somatosensory modalities.
|
Flash, T., Richardson, M. E., Handzel, A. A., & Liebermann, D. G. (2003). Computational Models and Geometric Approaches in Arm Trajectory Control Studies. In M. L. Latash, & M. F. Levin (Eds.), Progress in Motor Control III: From Basic Science to Applications. Champaign, Il: Human Kinetics.
|
Finkbeiner, M., & Friedman, J. (2011). The flexibility of nonconsciously deployed cognitive processes: Evidence from masked congruence priming. PLoS ONE, 6(2), e17095.
Abstract: Background
It is well accepted in the subliminal priming literature that task-level properties modulate nonconscious processes. For example, in tasks with a limited number of targets, subliminal priming effects are limited to primes that are physically similar to the targets. In contrast, when a large number of targets are used, subliminal priming effects are observed for primes that share a semantic (but not necessarily physical) relationship with the target. Findings such as these have led researchers to conclude that task-level properties can direct nonconscious processes to be deployed exclusively over central (semantic) or peripheral (physically specified) representations.
Principal Findings
We find distinct patterns of masked priming for “novel” and “repeated” primes within a single task context. Novel primes never appear as targets and thus are not seen consciously in the experiment. Repeated primes do appear as targets, thereby lending themselves to the establishment of peripheral stimulus-response mappings. If the source of the masked priming effect were exclusively central or
peripheral, then both novel and repeated primes should yield similar patterns of priming. In contrast, we find that both novel and repeated primes produce robust, yet distinct, patterns of priming.
Conclusions
Our findings indicate that nonconsciously elicited cognitive processes can be flexibly deployed over both central and peripheral representations within a single task context. While we agree that task level properties can influence nonconscious processes, our findings sharply constrain the extent of this influence. Specifically, our findings are inconsistent with extant accounts which hold that the influence of task-level properties is strong enough to restrict the deployment of nonconsciously elicited cognitive processes to a single type of representation (i.e. central or peripheral).
|