Library

Notes: Abstract This study examined changes in the performance of a single-joint, elbow task produced by reversible inactivation of local regions within the proximal forelimb representation in area 4γ of motor cortex (MCx) and the red nucleus (RN) of the cat. Inactivation was carried out by microinjecting lidocaine, γ-aminobutyric acid, or muscimol into sites where microstimulation evoked contraction of elbow muscles. Reaction time, amplitude, and speed (velocity or dF/dt) of position and force responses elicited during inactivation were compared to control values obtained immediately prior to inactivation. In addition, we assessed qualitatively the effects of inactivation on reaching, placing reactions, and proprioceptive responses to imposed limb displacement. In the single-joint task, injections in MCx did not increase reaction time (simple or choice) and produced modest and inconsistent reductions in response amplitude (mean-8%) and speed (mean -19%). In contrast, injections of the same amounts of inactivating agents in the forelimb representation of RN consistently increased reaction time (34.4%), and increased the reaction time coefficient of variability (32%). There were small reductions in response amplitude (-4%) and speed (-10%) which were less than those produced by MCx inactivation. During reaching, however, these same injections in MCx and RN produced a substantial loss of accuracy. For MCx, this was due, in part, to systematic hypometria: for RN, inaccuracy resulted from increased variability in paw paths. Placing reactions and corrective responses to imposed limb displacements were also depressed by the cortical and rubral injections. Our results suggest that the forelimb representation in RN plays a role in the initiation of the single-joint, elbow tracking response examined here. The RN may mediate cerebellar regulation of response timing, a function that is likely to be important for interjoint coordination. Although neurons in the forelimb representations of MCx may contribute to force generation in single-joint movements, their contribution to multijoint control appears to be more important and is examined in the subsequent report (Martin and Ghez 1993).

Notes: Summary In the present study we recorded the activity of single neurons in the forelimb area of red nucleus (RN) during performance of three step-tracking tasks designed to dissociate the coding of stimulus and response variables in the discharge of recorded neurons. In two of these tasks, the standard and stimulus-reversal arm tasks, elbow flexion and extension were elicited by different stimuli enabling us to distinguish activity correlated with the forelimb response from the stimulus eliciting it. The third task (neck task) allowed us to determine whether neuronal modulation was related to an unconditioned orienting response that occurred concurrently with the forelimb response. We have previously reported that these three tasks separate neurons in MCx whose modulation precedes the response (lead cells) into three distinct classes in which task-related activity either is correlated with the direction of the forelimb response, correlated with the stimulus, or not correlated with either (Martin and Ghez 1985). All lead cells, however, remained timed to the stimulus rather than to the response. The present results show that RN lead cells can be subdivided into the same three classes as those in MCx and their discharge was also contingent on the subsequent production of a behavioral response. (1) Force-direction neurons (35%; n = 16) showed changes in activity correlated with the production of forearm force in a particular direction suggesting that they could participate in selecting the appropriate forelimb response. The onset of task-related modulation of activity was better timed to the response, in contrast to force-direction neurons in MCx, which were better timed to the stimulus. (2) Stimulus-direction neurons (18%; n = 8) modulated their activity in relation to a particular stimulus evoking either flexor or extensor responses and during neck task performance. These neurons could be involved in processing stimulus information or in the production of neck torque. The task-related discharge of these lead cells was better timed to the stimulus than to either the forelimb or the neck response. (3) Nondirectional neurons (47%; n = 21) modulated their activity during all tasks examined. Their discharge did not correlate with any specific feature of the stimulus or response, and as a group, was better timed to the stimulus than to the response. Nondirectional neurons may participate in some aspect of motor preparation. To determine the relative contributions of RN and MCx lead cells to response initiation, we compared the amount of response latency variance that could be explained by variation in the latency of the unit modulation to the stimulus for the present data and the data in the earlier MCx study (Martin and Ghez 1985). Between 38% and 53% of response latency variance (for trials examined during performance of the standard arm and stimulus reversal tasks) was accounted for by the latency variations of RN force direction neurons; in contrast, 8% and 11% for MCx force-direction neurons. Variations in timing of stimulus-direction neurons in both RN and MCx account for less than 10% of response latency variance. Our findings suggest that, in the tasks examined, RN force-direction neurons play a more direct role than MCx force-direction neurons in initiating and selecting responses to stimuli. We hypothesized that this subcortical control reflects the high degree of stereotypy of the motor response examined.

Notes: Abstract This study analyzed changes in the performance of a reaching task and its adaptive modification produced by reversible inactivation of three sites within the forelimb representation of the motor cortex (MCx, area 4γ) in five cats by microinjections of muscimol. Two sites were located in the lateral MCx, rostral (RL-MCx) and caudal (CL-MCx) to the end of the cruciate sulcus, where intracortical microstimulation (ICMS) produced contraction of the most distal muscles. The third site was located more medially, in the anterior sigmoid gyrus (RM-MCx) where ICMS primarily produced contraction of more proximal muscles. The task required the animals to reach into a horizontal target well, located in front of them at one of three possible heights, to grasp and retrieve a small piece of food. The height of the reach was primarily achieved by elbow flexion. Grasping consisted primarily of digit flexion, and food retrieval consisted of forearm supination and shoulder extension. In some blocks of trials, an obstacle was placed in the path of the limb to assess the animal's ability to adaptively adjust the kinematic characteristics of their response trajectory. In normal animals, contact with the bar on the first trial triggered a corrective response at short latency that allowed the paw to circumvent the bar. On all subsequent trials, the trajectory was adapted to prevent contact with the obstacle, with a safety margin of about 1 cm. Inactivation at all sites produced a slowing of movement, a protracted and extended forelimb posture, and increased variability of initial limb position. In addition, inactivation of RL-MCx immediately produced systematic reaching errors, consisting of hypermetric movements, as well as impaired grasping and food retrieval. The degree of hypermetria was similar for all target heights and was not associated with alterations in trajectory control. During inactivation, animals did not compensate for the hypermetria by reducing paw path elevation, suggesting a defect in kinematic planning or in adaptive control. This was confirmed by finding that trajectory adaptation to avoid bar contact was impaired during RL-MCx inactivation. The short latency corrective response, triggered by contact of the limb with the obstacle was, however, preserved. Inactivation of CL-MCx did not impair aiming, grasping, or adaptation immediately after injection. However, impairments occurred after about 1 h postinjection, and at that time mimicked the effects of RL-MCx inactivation. This delay suggests that the drug was acting indirectly on the RL-MCx. Inactivation of RM-MCx did not impair the control of distal muscles, but the reaches became hypometric. The hypometria was greater for higher targets, suggesting that it resulted from weakness. Our results suggest that both rostral regions of the forelimb area of MCx play a more important role in the planning and execution of the prehension response than the caudal portion. We hypothesize that (1) the slowing of movement, forelimb postural changes, hypometria, and grasping and food retrieval impairments are due to defective control of muscles represented locally at each site in MCx and that (2) aiming and adaptation defects, which are produced only by RL-MCx inactivation, result from disruption of integrative mechanisms underlying sensorimotor transformations that normally assure movement accuracy.