Poster No:
2072
Submission Type:
Abstract Submission
Authors:
Akinori Takeda1, Kiyoshi Nakahara1,2, Masaya Hirashima3, Daichi Nozaki4, Hiroshi Kadota1,2
Institutions:
1Research Center for Brain Communication, Research Institute, Kochi University of Technology, Kochi, Japan, 2School of Informatics, Kochi University of Technology, Kochi, Japan, 3CiNet, Advanced ICT Research Institute, NICT, Osaka, Japan, 4Graduate School of Education, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan
First Author:
Akinori Takeda
Research Center for Brain Communication, Research Institute, Kochi University of Technology
Kochi, Japan
Co-Author(s):
Kiyoshi Nakahara
Research Center for Brain Communication, Research Institute, Kochi University of Technology|School of Informatics, Kochi University of Technology
Kochi, Japan|Kochi, Japan
Daichi Nozaki
Graduate School of Education, University of Tokyo
Tokyo, Japan
Hiroshi Kadota
Research Center for Brain Communication, Research Institute, Kochi University of Technology|School of Informatics, Kochi University of Technology
Kochi, Japan|Kochi, Japan
Introduction:
Rapid learning and acquisition of new motor skills require successful correction of errors. Using block-design functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), a previous study (Diedrichsen et al., 2005) revealed human brain areas activated when the rotation of motion trajectory on a screen was introduced as a visuomotor error during a reaching task. However, the brain areas involved in the trial-by-trial correction of errors from preceding trials and the timing of these corrective activities remain unclear. Using event-related fMRI, this study aimed to identify brain areas related to adaptive error correction during motor planning before actual movement and motor execution.
Methods:
Forty-two healthy adults (14 women, 18–27 years old; one left-handed) participated in this study. They performed a reaching task using a manipulandum on a 3-T MRI scanner (Siemens Prisma) while in the supine position. During multiband fMRI scans, participants held the manipulandum arm with their right hand and manipulated a white cursor on a projected screen by moving the manipulandum with their right wrist. At the beginning of each trial, participants were required to maintain the cursor at the starting position for 2–5 s, after which a blue target appeared. The target turned red 2 s after the onset (i.e., Go cue), prompting participants to swiftly move the cursor to the target. Three trial conditions were adopted: visuomotor error (VE), no error (NE), and Catch. In the VE trials, the visual feedback (cursor trajectories) during reach movements was rotated rightward or leftward around the starting position as a visuomotor error. NE trials had no visuomotor errors, and the NE trials immediately following the VE trials were used as Catch trials. Given that corrections for errors introduced in previous trials would be induced in Catch trials but not in the other trials, we expected that brain areas involved in error corrections would show activation differences between Catch and other trial conditions. To test this, we conducted a univariate analysis using FSL FEAT (Woolrich et al., 2001) and PALM (Winkler et al., 2014) after preprocessing with fMRIPrep (Esteban et al., 2019). For group-level inference, we used a faster inference method (Winkler et al., 2016) with threshold-free cluster enhancement (Smith et al., 2009) and corrections for multiple contrasts (Alberton et al., 2020). We conducted inference for activations both after the target onset and after the Go cue onset, aiming to reveal whether error-corrective activities would be observed during action planning before the actual movement and/or during motor execution.
Results:
Nine participants were excluded due to poor task performance, excessive head movement, or machine errors. The remaining thirty-three participants showed almost successful error-correcting behavior with most cursor trajectories in the Catch trials biased in the opposite directions to those in the preceding VE trials. After target onset, centro-parietal areas and the cerebellum were significantly activated in the Catch trials compared with VE and NE trials, while bilateral putamen showed greater activation in VE and NE trials than in Catch trials (P < 0.05, FWE-corrected). No significant differences in activation were observed between the VE and NE trials. After Go cue onset, broad cortical areas including the motor and parietal areas, the thalamus, and the cerebellum were more strongly activated in VE trials than in NE and Catch trials.
Conclusions:
Activation differences were observed between Catch and the other two trial conditions in broad cortical areas, the cerebellum, and the putamen after target onset. Our findings indicate that these areas are likely involved in planning corrections for errors introduced in preceding VE trials, contributing to rapid motor skill acquisition through effective error correction.
Motor Behavior:
Motor Planning and Execution 1
Visuo-Motor Functions 2
Keywords:
Cerebellum
FUNCTIONAL MRI
Motor
Other - Putamen
1|2Indicates the priority used for review
Provide references using author date format
Alberton, B.A.V. et al. (2020), ‘Multiple testing correction over contrasts for brain imaging’, NeuroImage, vol. 216, 116760
Diedrichsen, J. et al. (2005), ‘Neural correlates of reach errors’, The Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 25, no. 43, pp. 9919-9931
Esteban, O. et al. (2019), ‘fMRIPrep: a robust preprocessing pipeline for functional MRI’, Nature Methods, vol. 16, pp. 111-116
Smith, S.M. et al. (2009), ‘Threshold-free cluster enhancement: addressing problems of smoothing, threshold dependence and localization in cluster inference’, NeuroImage, vol. 44, issue 1, pp. 83-98
Winkler, A.M. et al. (2014), ‘Permutation inference for the general linear model’, NeuroImage, vol. 92, pp. 381-397
Winkler, A.M. et al. (2016), ‘Faster permutation inference in brain imaging’, NeuroImage, vol. 141, pp. 502-516
Woolrich, M.W. et al. (2001), ‘Temporal Autocorrelation in Univariate Linear Modeling of FMRI Data’, NeuroImage, vol. 14, issue 6, pp. 1370-1386