Different contributions of primary motor cortex, reticular formation, and spinal cord to fractionated muscle activation

Boubker Zaaimi, Lauren R. Dean, Stuart N. Baker*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Coordinated movement requires patterned activation of muscles. In this study, we examined differences in selective activation of primate upper limb muscles by cortical and subcortical regions. Five macaque monkeys were trained to perform a reach and grasp task, and electromyogram (EMG) was recorded from 10 to 24 muscles while weak single-pulse stimuli were delivered through microelectrodes inserted in the motor cortex (M1), reticular formation (RF), or cervical spinal cord (SC). Stimulus intensity was adjusted to a level just above threshold. Stimulus-evoked effects were assessed from averages of rectified EMG. M1, RF, and SC activated 1.5 ± 0.9, 1.9 ± 0.8, and 2.5 ± 1.6 muscles per site (means ± SD); only M1 and SC differed significantly. In between recording sessions, natural muscle activity in the home cage was recorded using a miniature data logger. A novel analysis assessed how well natural activity could be reconstructed by stimulus-evoked responses. This provided two measures: normalized vector length L, reflecting how closely aligned natural and stimulus-evoked activity were, and normalized residual R, measuring the fraction of natural activity not reachable using stimulus-evoked patterns. Average values for M1, RF, and SC were L = 119.1 ± 9.6, 105.9 ± 6.2, and 109.3 ± 8.4% and R = 50.3 ± 4.9, 56.4 ± 3.5, and 51.5 ± 4.8%, respectively. RF was significantly different from M1 and SC on both measurements. RF is thus able to generate an approximation to the motor output with less activation than required by M1 and SC, but M1 and SC are more precise in reaching the exact activation pattern required. Cortical, brainstem, and spinal centers likely play distinct roles, as they cooperate to generate voluntary movements. NEW & NOTEWORTHY Brainstem reticular formation, primary motor cortex, and cervical spinal cord intermediate zone can all activate primate upper limb muscles. However, brainstem output is more efficient but less precise in producing natural patterns of motor output than motor cortex or spinal cord. We suggest that gross muscle synergies from the reticular formation are sculpted and refined by motor cortex and spinal circuits to reach the finely fractionated output characteristic of dexterous primate upper limb movements.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)235-250
Number of pages16
JournalJournal of Neurophysiology
Volume119
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jan 2018

Fingerprint

Reticular Formation
Motor Cortex
Spinal Cord
Muscles
Upper Extremity
Primates
Brain Stem
Electromyography
Macaca
Microelectrodes
Hand Strength
Haplorhini

Bibliographical note

Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution CC-BY 4.0 : © the American Physiological Society.

Keywords

  • Electromyogram
  • Fractionation
  • Motor cortex
  • Reticular formation
  • Spinal cord
  • Synergy

Cite this

@article{b8b05898e2da43668d5dce2cb974cc55,
title = "Different contributions of primary motor cortex, reticular formation, and spinal cord to fractionated muscle activation",
abstract = "Coordinated movement requires patterned activation of muscles. In this study, we examined differences in selective activation of primate upper limb muscles by cortical and subcortical regions. Five macaque monkeys were trained to perform a reach and grasp task, and electromyogram (EMG) was recorded from 10 to 24 muscles while weak single-pulse stimuli were delivered through microelectrodes inserted in the motor cortex (M1), reticular formation (RF), or cervical spinal cord (SC). Stimulus intensity was adjusted to a level just above threshold. Stimulus-evoked effects were assessed from averages of rectified EMG. M1, RF, and SC activated 1.5 ± 0.9, 1.9 ± 0.8, and 2.5 ± 1.6 muscles per site (means ± SD); only M1 and SC differed significantly. In between recording sessions, natural muscle activity in the home cage was recorded using a miniature data logger. A novel analysis assessed how well natural activity could be reconstructed by stimulus-evoked responses. This provided two measures: normalized vector length L, reflecting how closely aligned natural and stimulus-evoked activity were, and normalized residual R, measuring the fraction of natural activity not reachable using stimulus-evoked patterns. Average values for M1, RF, and SC were L = 119.1 ± 9.6, 105.9 ± 6.2, and 109.3 ± 8.4{\%} and R = 50.3 ± 4.9, 56.4 ± 3.5, and 51.5 ± 4.8{\%}, respectively. RF was significantly different from M1 and SC on both measurements. RF is thus able to generate an approximation to the motor output with less activation than required by M1 and SC, but M1 and SC are more precise in reaching the exact activation pattern required. Cortical, brainstem, and spinal centers likely play distinct roles, as they cooperate to generate voluntary movements. NEW & NOTEWORTHY Brainstem reticular formation, primary motor cortex, and cervical spinal cord intermediate zone can all activate primate upper limb muscles. However, brainstem output is more efficient but less precise in producing natural patterns of motor output than motor cortex or spinal cord. We suggest that gross muscle synergies from the reticular formation are sculpted and refined by motor cortex and spinal circuits to reach the finely fractionated output characteristic of dexterous primate upper limb movements.",
keywords = "Electromyogram, Fractionation, Motor cortex, Reticular formation, Spinal cord, Synergy",
author = "Boubker Zaaimi and Dean, {Lauren R.} and Baker, {Stuart N.}",
note = "Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution CC-BY 4.0 : {\circledC} the American Physiological Society.",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1152/jn.00672.2017",
language = "English",
volume = "119",
pages = "235--250",
journal = "Journal of Neurophysiology",
issn = "0022-3077",
publisher = "American Physiological Society",
number = "1",

}

Different contributions of primary motor cortex, reticular formation, and spinal cord to fractionated muscle activation. / Zaaimi, Boubker; Dean, Lauren R.; Baker, Stuart N.

In: Journal of Neurophysiology, Vol. 119, No. 1, 01.01.2018, p. 235-250.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Different contributions of primary motor cortex, reticular formation, and spinal cord to fractionated muscle activation

AU - Zaaimi, Boubker

AU - Dean, Lauren R.

AU - Baker, Stuart N.

N1 - Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution CC-BY 4.0 : © the American Physiological Society.

PY - 2018/1/1

Y1 - 2018/1/1

N2 - Coordinated movement requires patterned activation of muscles. In this study, we examined differences in selective activation of primate upper limb muscles by cortical and subcortical regions. Five macaque monkeys were trained to perform a reach and grasp task, and electromyogram (EMG) was recorded from 10 to 24 muscles while weak single-pulse stimuli were delivered through microelectrodes inserted in the motor cortex (M1), reticular formation (RF), or cervical spinal cord (SC). Stimulus intensity was adjusted to a level just above threshold. Stimulus-evoked effects were assessed from averages of rectified EMG. M1, RF, and SC activated 1.5 ± 0.9, 1.9 ± 0.8, and 2.5 ± 1.6 muscles per site (means ± SD); only M1 and SC differed significantly. In between recording sessions, natural muscle activity in the home cage was recorded using a miniature data logger. A novel analysis assessed how well natural activity could be reconstructed by stimulus-evoked responses. This provided two measures: normalized vector length L, reflecting how closely aligned natural and stimulus-evoked activity were, and normalized residual R, measuring the fraction of natural activity not reachable using stimulus-evoked patterns. Average values for M1, RF, and SC were L = 119.1 ± 9.6, 105.9 ± 6.2, and 109.3 ± 8.4% and R = 50.3 ± 4.9, 56.4 ± 3.5, and 51.5 ± 4.8%, respectively. RF was significantly different from M1 and SC on both measurements. RF is thus able to generate an approximation to the motor output with less activation than required by M1 and SC, but M1 and SC are more precise in reaching the exact activation pattern required. Cortical, brainstem, and spinal centers likely play distinct roles, as they cooperate to generate voluntary movements. NEW & NOTEWORTHY Brainstem reticular formation, primary motor cortex, and cervical spinal cord intermediate zone can all activate primate upper limb muscles. However, brainstem output is more efficient but less precise in producing natural patterns of motor output than motor cortex or spinal cord. We suggest that gross muscle synergies from the reticular formation are sculpted and refined by motor cortex and spinal circuits to reach the finely fractionated output characteristic of dexterous primate upper limb movements.

AB - Coordinated movement requires patterned activation of muscles. In this study, we examined differences in selective activation of primate upper limb muscles by cortical and subcortical regions. Five macaque monkeys were trained to perform a reach and grasp task, and electromyogram (EMG) was recorded from 10 to 24 muscles while weak single-pulse stimuli were delivered through microelectrodes inserted in the motor cortex (M1), reticular formation (RF), or cervical spinal cord (SC). Stimulus intensity was adjusted to a level just above threshold. Stimulus-evoked effects were assessed from averages of rectified EMG. M1, RF, and SC activated 1.5 ± 0.9, 1.9 ± 0.8, and 2.5 ± 1.6 muscles per site (means ± SD); only M1 and SC differed significantly. In between recording sessions, natural muscle activity in the home cage was recorded using a miniature data logger. A novel analysis assessed how well natural activity could be reconstructed by stimulus-evoked responses. This provided two measures: normalized vector length L, reflecting how closely aligned natural and stimulus-evoked activity were, and normalized residual R, measuring the fraction of natural activity not reachable using stimulus-evoked patterns. Average values for M1, RF, and SC were L = 119.1 ± 9.6, 105.9 ± 6.2, and 109.3 ± 8.4% and R = 50.3 ± 4.9, 56.4 ± 3.5, and 51.5 ± 4.8%, respectively. RF was significantly different from M1 and SC on both measurements. RF is thus able to generate an approximation to the motor output with less activation than required by M1 and SC, but M1 and SC are more precise in reaching the exact activation pattern required. Cortical, brainstem, and spinal centers likely play distinct roles, as they cooperate to generate voluntary movements. NEW & NOTEWORTHY Brainstem reticular formation, primary motor cortex, and cervical spinal cord intermediate zone can all activate primate upper limb muscles. However, brainstem output is more efficient but less precise in producing natural patterns of motor output than motor cortex or spinal cord. We suggest that gross muscle synergies from the reticular formation are sculpted and refined by motor cortex and spinal circuits to reach the finely fractionated output characteristic of dexterous primate upper limb movements.

KW - Electromyogram

KW - Fractionation

KW - Motor cortex

KW - Reticular formation

KW - Spinal cord

KW - Synergy

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85043469333&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - https://www.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/jn.00672.2017

U2 - 10.1152/jn.00672.2017

DO - 10.1152/jn.00672.2017

M3 - Article

C2 - 29046427

AN - SCOPUS:85043469333

VL - 119

SP - 235

EP - 250

JO - Journal of Neurophysiology

JF - Journal of Neurophysiology

SN - 0022-3077

IS - 1

ER -