Christopher J. Forgaard

Evidence for a response preparation bottleneck during dual-task performance: effect of a startling acoustic stimulus on the psychological refractory period.

The present study was designed to investigate the mechanism associated with dual-task interference in a psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm. We used a simple reaction time paradigm consisting of a vocal response (R1) and key-lift task (R2) with a stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) between 100ms and 1500ms. On selected trials we implemented a startling acoustic stimulus concurrent with the second stimulus to determine if we could involuntarily trigger the second response. Our results indicated that the PRP delay in the second response was present for both control and startle trials at short SOAs, suggesting the second response was not prepared in advance. These results support a response preparation bottleneck and can be explained via a neural activation model of preparation. In addition, we found that the reflexive startle activation was reduced in the dual-task condition for all SOAs, a result we attribute to prepulse inhibition associated with dual-task processing.

Voluntary reaction time and long-latency reflex modulation

Stretching a muscle of the upper limb elicits short (M1) and long-latency (M2) reflexes. When the participant is instructed to actively compensate for a perturbation, M1 is usually unaffected and M2 increases in size and is followed by the voluntary response. It remains unclear if the observed increase in M2 is due to instruction-dependent gain modulation of the contributing reflex mechanism(s) or results from voluntary response superposition. The difficulty in delineating between these alternatives is due to the overlap between the voluntary response and the end of M2. The present study manipulated response accuracy and complexity to delay onset of the voluntary response and observed the corresponding influence on electromyographic activity during the M2 period. In all active conditions, M2 was larger compared with a passive condition where participants did not respond to the perturbation; moreover, these changes in M2 began early in the appearance of the response (∼ 50 ms), too early to be accounted for by voluntary overlap. Voluntary response latency influenced the latter portion of M2, with the largest activity seen when accuracy of limb position was not specified. However, when participants aimed for targets of different sizes or performed movements of various complexities, reaction time differences did not influence M2 period activity, suggesting voluntary activity was sufficiently delayed. Collectively, our results show that while a perturbation applied to the upper limbs can trigger a voluntary response at short latency (<100 ms), instruction-dependent reflex gain modulation remains an important contributor to EMG changes during the M2 period.

Startle reveals independent preparation and initiation of triphasic EMG burst components in targeted ballistic movements

Muscles involved in rapid, targeted movements about a single joint often display a triphasic [agonist (AG1)-antagonist (ANT)-agonist (AG2)] electromyographic (EMG) pattern. Early work using movement perturbations suggested that for short movements, the entire EMG pattern was prepared and initiated in advance (Wadman WJ, Dernier van der Gon JJ, Geuze RH, Mol CR. J Hum Mov Stud 5: 3-17, 1979), whereas more recent transcranial magnetic stimulation evidence indicates that the ANT may be programmed separately (MacKinnon CD, Rothwell JC. J Physiol 528: 633-645, 2000) with execution of the bursts occurring serially (Irlbacher K, Voss M, Meyer BU, Rothwell JC. J Physiol 574: 917-928, 2006). The purpose of the current study was to investigate the generation of triphasic EMG bursts for movements of different amplitudes. In experiment 1, participants performed rapid elbow extension movements to 20° and 60° targets, and on some trials, a startling acoustic stimulus (SAS), which is thought to trigger prepared motor commands at short latency, was delivered at the onset of AG1. For short movements, this perturbation elicited ANT and AG2 early, suggesting the agonist and antagonist bursts may have been programmed independently. In contrast, the same manipulation did not disrupt EMG timing parameters for the long movements, raising the possibility that ANT and AG2 were not fully programmed in advance of movement onset. In experiment 2, an SAS was delivered later in the movement, which produced early onset of both ANT and AG2. We propose that the triphasic pattern is executed serially but believe the trigger signal for initiating the ANT burst occurs not in relation to the AG1 burst, but rather in close temporal proximity to the expected onset of ANT.

An examination of the startle response during upper limb stretch perturbations

Unexpected presentation of a startling auditory stimulus (SAS>120 decibels) in a reaction time (RT) paradigm results in the startle reflex and an early release (<100ms) of the preplanned motor response (StartReact effect). Mechanical perturbations applied to the upper limbs elicit short- (M1) and long-latency (M2) stretch reflexes and have also been shown to initiate intended motor responses early (<100ms). Ravichandran et al. (2013) recently proposed that unexpected delivery of a perturbation could also elicit a startle response and therefore the StartReact effect may be responsible for the early trigger of a preplanned response. To investigate this further, we examined startle incidence, RT, and stretch reflex modulation for both expected and unexpected perturbations. In Experiment 1, participants performed active (ACT) and passive (DNI) conditions to an expected large perturbation (similar to previous studies examining M2). The startle response was not observed; however, the perturbation still elicited the voluntary response at short latency (<100ms) and goal-dependent modulation of the M2 response was observed. In Experiment 2, participants performed ACT and DNI conditions to a weak auditory stimulus or a small wrist perturbation. On unexpected trials we probed startle circuitry with a large perturbation or SAS. The SAS consistently elicited a startle response in both ACT and DNI conditions, but startle-like activity was only observed on 17.4% of ACT perturbation probe trials. Our findings suggest that while unexpected upper limb perturbations can be startling, startle triggering of the preplanned voluntary response is not the primary mechanism responsible for goal-dependent modulation of the M2 response.

Perturbation Predictability Can Influence the Long-Latency Stretch Response.

Perturbations applied to the upper limbs elicit short (M1: 25–50 ms) and long-latency (M2: 50–100 ms) responses in the stretched muscle. M1 is produced by a spinal reflex loop, and M2 receives contribution from multiple spinal and supra-spinal pathways. While M1 is relatively immutable to voluntary intention, the remarkable feature of M2 is that its size can change based on intention or goal of the participant (e.g., increasing when resisting the perturbation and decreasing when asked to let-go or relax following the perturbation). While many studies have examined modulation of M2 between passive and various active conditions, through the use of constant foreperiods (interval between warning signal and a perturbation), it has also been shown that the magnitude of the M2 response in a passive condition can change based on factors such as habituation and anticipation of perturbation delivery. To prevent anticipation of a perturbation, most studies have used variable foreperiods; however, the range of possible foreperiod duration differs between experiments. The present study examined the influence of different variable foreperiods on modulation of the M2 response. Fifteen participants performed active and passive responses to a perturbation that stretched wrist flexors. Each block of trials had either a short (2.5–3.5 seconds; high predictability) or long (2.5–10.5 seconds; low predictability) variable foreperiod. As expected, no differences were found between any conditions for M1, while M2 was larger in the active rather than passive conditions. Interestingly, within the two passive conditions, the long variable foreperiods resulted in greater activity at the end of the M2 response than the trials with short foreperiods. These results suggest that perturbation predictability, even when using a variable foreperiod, can influence circuitry contributing to the long-latency stretch response.