Chronic short sleep duration lengthens reaction time, but the deficit is not associated with motor preparation.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the association between chronic sleep duration and reaction time performance and motor preparation during a simple reaction time task with a startling acoustic stimulus in adults. This cross-sectional study included self-reported short sleepers (n = 25, ≤ 6 hr per night) and adequate sleepers (n = 25, ≥ 7.5 hr per night) who performed a simple reaction time task requiring a targeted ballistic wrist extension in response to either a control-tone (80 dB) or a startling acoustic stimulus (120 dB). Outcome measures included reaction times for each stimulus (overall and for each trial block), lapses, and proportion of startle responses. Chronic short sleepers slept on average 5.7 hr per night in the previous month, which was 2.8 hr per night less than the adequate sleepers. Results revealed an interaction between sleep duration group and stimulus type; the short sleepers had significantly slower control-tone reaction times compared with adequate sleepers, but there was no significant difference in reaction time between groups for the startling acoustic stimulus. Further investigation showed that chronic short sleepers had significantly slower control-tone reaction times after two blocks of trials lasting about 5 min, until the end of the task. Lapses were not significantly different between groups. Chronic short sleep duration was associated with poorer performance; however, these reaction time deficits cannot be attributed to motor preparation, as startling acoustic stimulus reaction times were not different between sleep duration groups. While time-on-task performance decrements were associated with chronic sleep duration, alertness was not. Sleeping less than the recommended sleep duration on a regular basis is associated with poorer cognitive performance, which becomes evident after 5 min.

An intense electrical stimulus can elicit a StartReact effect but with decreased incidence and later onset of the startle reflex.

Planned actions can be triggered involuntarily by a startling acoustic stimulus (SAS), resulting in very short reaction times (RT). This phenomenon, known as the StartReact effect, is thought to result from the startle-related activation of reticular structures. However, other sensory modalities also can elicit a reflexive startle response. Here, we assessed the effectiveness of an intense startling electric stimulus (SES) in eliciting the StartReact effect as compared to a SAS. We tested SES intensities at 15 and 25 times the perceptual threshold of each participant, as well as SAS intensities of 114 dB and 120 dB. The electrical stimulation electrodes were placed over short head of the biceps brachii on the arm not involved in the task. Intense electric and acoustic stimuli were presented on 20% of the trials in a simple RT paradigm requiring a targeted ballistic wrist extension movement. The proportion of trials showing short latency (≤ 120 ms) startle reflex-related activation in sternocleidomastoid was significantly lower on intense electrical stimulus trials compared to intense acoustic trials, and the startle response onset occurred significantly later on SES trials compared to SAS. However, when a startle reflex was observed, RTs related to the prepared movement were facilitated to a similar extent for both SES and SAS conditions, suggesting that the accelerated response latency associated with the StartReact effect is independent of stimulus type.

Visual perceptual processing is unaffected by cognitive fatigue.

Cognitive fatigue (CF) can lead to an increase in the latency of simple reaction time, although the processes involved in this delay are unknown. One potential explanation is that a longer time may be required for sensory processing of relevant stimuli. To investigate this possibility, the current study used a visual inspection time task to measure perceptual processing speed before and after a CF (math and memory) or non-fatiguing (documentary film) intervention. Subjective fatigue and simple reaction time significantly increased following the CF, but not the non-fatiguing intervention, confirming that CF was induced. Conversely, there was no effect of CF on inspection time task performance. It was therefore concluded that the speed of perceptual processing is not significantly impacted by CF, and thus is unlikely to underlie CF-related reaction time increases. Instead, increases in simple reaction time latency in CF may be due to delays in response preparation or initiation.

Working memory involvement in action planning does not include timing initiation structure.

A fundamental limitation in the type of information that can be retained in working memory is identified in this theoretical / review article. The analysis is based on studies of skilled motor performance that were not initially conceived in terms of working memory. Findings from a long history of experimentation involving reaction time (RT) prior to making a brief motor response indicate that although the parameters representing the goal to be achieved by the response can be retained in working memory, the control code that implements timing of action components cannot. This lack of working memory requires that the "timing code" must be compiled immediately prior to the moment that it is to be utilized; it is not possible to be fully ready to respond earlier. This compiling process increases RT and may also underlie both the psychological refractory period effect and the difficulty of generating concurrent motor actions with independent timing. These conclusions extend, but do not conflict with, other models of working memory.

Investigating motor preparation in synchronous hand and foot movements under reactive vs. predictive control.

Synchronizing hand and foot movements under reactive versus predictive control results in differential timing structures between the responses. Under reactive control, where the movement is externally triggered, the electromyographic (EMG) responses are synchronized, resulting in the hand displacement preceding the foot. Under predictive control, where the movement is self-paced, the motor commands are organized such that the displacement onset occurs relatively synchronously, requiring the EMG onset of the foot to precede that of the hand. The current study used a startling acoustic stimulus (SAS), which can involuntarily trigger a prepared response, to investigate whether these results are due to differences in a pre-programmed timing structure of the responses. Participants performed synchronous movements of the right heel and right hand under both reactive and predictive modes of control. The reactive condition involved a simple reaction time (RT) task, whereas the predictive condition involved an anticipation-timing task. On selected trials, a SAS (114 dB) was presented 150 ms prior to the imperative stimulus. Results from the SAS trials revealed that while the differential timing structures between the responses was maintained under both reactive and predictive control, the EMG onset asynchrony under predictive control was significantly smaller following the SAS. These results suggest that the timing between the responses, which differs between the two control modes, is pre-programmed; however, under predictive control, the SAS may accelerate the internal timekeeper, resulting in a shortened between-limb delay.

A TMS-induced cortical silent period delays the contralateral limb for bimanual symmetrical movements and the reaction time delay is reduced on startle trials.

Bimanual actions are typically initiated and executed in a temporally synchronous manner, likely due to planning bilateral commands as a single motor "program." Applying high-intensity transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to the motor cortex can result in a contralateral cortical silent period that delays reaction time (RT), if timed to coincide with the final motor output stage. The current study examined the impact of a unilateral TMS silent period on the RT and interlimb timing of bilateral wrist extension. In addition, because a loud, startling acoustic stimulus (SAS) can result in the involuntary release of preprogrammed actions via increased reticulospinal activation, it was of interest whether startle-induced speeding of response initiation would moderate the impact of the TMS-induced RT delay. Participants performed blocks of unilateral and bilateral wrist extension in response to an acoustic (82 dB) go-signal. On selected trials, either TMS was applied to the left motor cortex 70 ms before the expected EMG response onset, a SAS (120 dB) replaced the go-signal, or both TMS and SAS were delivered. Results showed that TMS led to a significant RT delay in the right limb during both unimanual and bimanual extension but had no impact on the left limb initiation. In addition, the magnitude of the right limb RT delay was smaller when the response was triggered by a SAS. These results imply that preplanned bimanually synchronous movements are susceptible to lateralized dissociation late into the cortical motor output stage and movements triggered by startle involve increased reticulospinal output.NEW & NOTEWORTHY Bilateral responses are typically planned synchronously and performed symmetrically. Here, we show that delaying the initiation of one limb using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to produce a cortical silent period does not impact the other limb during bimanual movements. Also, the TMS-induced delay is reduced when a startling acoustic stimulus (SAS) triggers the movement. These results confirm that tightly coupled bilateral responses can be dissociated by contralateral TMS- and SAS-triggered responses involve greater reticulospinal output.

Response preparation of a secondary reaction time task is influenced by movement phase within a continuous visuomotor tracking task.

The simultaneous performance of two motor tasks is challenging. Currently, it is unclear how response preparation of a secondary task is impacted by the performance of a continuous primary task. The purpose of the present experiment was to investigate whether the position of the limb performing the primary cyclical tracking task impacts response preparation of a secondary reaction time task. Participants (n = 20) performed a continuous tracking task with their left hand that involved cyclical and targeted wrist flexion and extension. Occasionally, a probe reaction time task requiring isometric wrist extension was performed with the right hand in response to an auditory stimulus (80 or 120 dB) that was triggered when the left hand passed through one of 10 locations identified within the movement cycle. On separate trials, transcranial magnetic stimulation was applied over the left primary motor cortex and triggered at the same 10 stimulus locations to assess corticospinal excitability associated with the probe reaction time task. Results revealed that probe reaction times were significantly longer and motor-evoked potential amplitudes were significantly larger when the left hand was in the middle of a movement cycle compared with an endpoint, suggesting that response preparation of a secondary probe reaction time task was modulated by the phase of movement within the continuous primary task. These results indicate that primary motor task requirements can impact preparation of a secondary task, reinforcing the importance of considering primary task characteristics in dual-task experimental design.

Slowed reaction times in cognitive fatigue are not attributable to declines in motor preparation.

Cognitive fatigue (CF) can result from sustained mental effort, is characterized by subjective feelings of exhaustion and cognitive performance deficits, and is associated with slowed simple reaction time (RT). This study determined whether declines in motor preparation underlie this RT effect. Motor preparation level was indexed using simple RT and the StartReact effect, wherein a prepared movement is involuntarily triggered at short latency by a startling acoustic stimulus (SAS). It was predicted that if decreased motor preparation underlies CF-associated RT increases, then an attenuated StartReact effect would be observed following cognitive task completion. Subjective fatigue assessment and a simple RT task were performed before and after a cognitively fatiguing task or non-fatiguing control intervention. On 25% of RT trials, a SAS replaced the go-signal to assess the StartReact effect. CF inducement was verified by significant declines in cognitive performance (p = 0.003), along with increases in subjective CF (p < 0.001) and control RT (p = 0.018) following the cognitive fatigue intervention, but not the control intervention. No significant pre-to-post-test changes in SAS RT were observed, indicating that RT increases resulting from CF are not substantially associated with declines in motor preparation, and instead may be attributable to other stages of processing during a simple RT task.

Bimanual but not unimanual finger movements are triggered by a startling acoustic stimulus: evidence for increased reticulospinal drive for bimanual responses.

The relative contributions of reticulospinal versus corticospinal pathways for movement production are thought to be dependent on the type of response involved. For example, unilateral distal movements involving the hand and finger have been thought to be primarily driven by corticospinal output, whereas bilateral responses are considered to have greater reticulospinal drive. The current study investigated whether a difference in the relative contribution of reticulospinal drive to a bimanual versus unimanual finger movement could be assessed using a StartReact protocol. The StartReact effect refers to the early and involuntary initiation of a prepared movement when a startle reflex is elicited. A decreased response latency on loud stimulus trials where a startle reflex is observed in sternocleidomastoid (SCM+ trials) confirms the StartReact effect, which is attributed to increased reticulospinal drive associated with engagement of the startle reflex circuitry. It was predicted that a StartReact effect would be absent for the predominantly corticospinal-mediated unimanual finger movement but present for the bimanual finger movement due to stronger reticulospinal drive. Results supported both predictions as reaction time was statistically equivalent for SCM+ and SCM- trials during unimanual finger movements but significantly shorter for SCM+ trials during bimanual finger movements. These results were taken as strong and novel evidence for increased reticulospinal output for bimanual finger movements.NEW & NOTEWORTHY The relative contributions of reticulospinal and corticospinal pathways to movement initiation are relatively unknown but appear to depend on the involved musculature. Here, we show that unimanual finger movements, which are predominantly initiated via corticospinal pathways, are not triggered at short latency by a startling acoustic stimulus (SAS), while bimanual finger movements are triggered by the SAS. This distinction is attributed to increased reticulospinal drive for bilateral responses.

StartReact effects are dependent on engagement of startle reflex circuits: support for a subcortically mediated initiation pathway.

The "StartReact" effect refers to the rapid involuntary triggering of a prepared movement in response to a loud startling acoustic stimulus (SAS). This effect is typically confirmed by the presence of short-latency electromyographic activity in startle reflex-related muscles such as the sternocleidomastoid (SCM); however, there is debate regarding the specific neural pathways involved in the StartReact effect. Some research has implicated a subcortically mediated pathway, which would predict different response latencies depending on the presence of a startle reflex. Alternatively, other research has suggested that this effect involves the same pathways responsible for voluntary response initiation and simply reflects higher preparatory activation levels, and thus faster voluntary initiation. To distinguish between these competing hypotheses, the present study assessed preparation level during a simple reaction time (RT) task involving wrist extension in response to a control tone or a SAS. Premotor RT and startle circuitry engagement (as measured by SCM activation) were determined for each trial. Additionally, preparation level at the go signal on each trial was measured using motor-evoked potentials (MEP) elicited by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). Results showed that SAS trial RTs were significantly shorter (P = 0.009) in the presence of startle-related SCM activity. Nevertheless, preparation levels (as indexed by MEP amplitude) were statistically equivalent between trials with and without SCM activation. These results indicate that the StartReact effect relates to engagement of the startle reflex circuitry rather than simply being a result of an increased level of preparatory activation.NEW & NOTEWORTHY The neural mechanism underlying the early triggering of goal-directed actions by a startling acoustic stimulus (SAS) is unclear. We show that although significant reaction time differences were evident depending on whether the SAS elicited a startle reflex, motor preparatory activation was the same. Thus, in a highly prepared state, the short-latency responses associated with the StartReact effect appear to be related to engagement of startle reflex circuitry, not differences in motor preparatory level.

Influence of kinesthetic motor imagery and effector specificity on the long-latency stretch response.

The long-latency "reflexive" response (LLR) following an upper limb mechanical perturbation is generated by neural circuitry shared with voluntary control. This feedback response supports many task-dependent behaviors and permits the expression of goal-directed corrections at latencies shorter than voluntary reaction time. An extensive body of literature has demonstrated that the LLR shows flexibility akin to voluntary control, but it has not yet been tested whether instruction-dependent LLR changes can also occur in the absence of an overt voluntary response. The present study used kinesthetic motor imagery (experiment 1) and instructed participants to execute movement with the unperturbed contralateral limb (experiment 2) to explore the relationship between the overt production of a voluntary response and LLR facilitation. Activity in stretched right wrist flexors were compared with standard "do not-intervene" and "compensate" conditions. Our findings revealed that on ~40% of imagery and ~50% of contralateral trials, a response occurred during the voluntary epoch in the stretched right wrist flexors. On these "leaked" trials, the early portion of the LLR (R2) was facilitated and displayed a similar increase to compensate trials. The latter half of the LLR (R3) showed further modulation, mirroring the patterns of voluntary epoch activity. By contrast, the LLR on "non-leaked" imagery and contralateral trials did not modulate. We suggest that even though a hastened voluntary response cannot account for all instruction-dependent LLR modulation, the overt execution of a response during the voluntary epoch in the same muscle(s) as the LLR is a prerequisite for instruction-dependent facilitation of this feedback response.NEW & NOTEWORTHY Using motor imagery and contralateral responses, we provide novel evidence that facilitation of the long-latency reflex (LLR) requires the execution of a response during the voluntary epoch. A high proportion of overt response "leaks" were found where the mentally simulated or mirrored response appeared in stretched muscle. The first half of the LLR was categorically sensitive to the appearance of leaks, whereas the latter half displayed characteristics closely resembling activity in the ensuing voluntary period.

High-intensity transcranial magnetic stimulation reveals differential cortical contributions to prepared responses.

Corticospinal output pathways have typically been considered to be the primary driver for voluntary movements of the hand/forearm; however, more recently, reticulospinal drive has also been implicated in the production of these movements. Although both pathways may play a role, the reticulospinal tract is thought to have stronger connections to flexor muscles than to extensors. Similarly, movements involuntarily triggered via a startling acoustic stimulus (SAS) are believed to receive greater reticular input than voluntary movements. To investigate a differential role of reticulospinal drive depending on movement type or acoustic stimulus, corticospinal drive was transiently interrupted using high-intensity transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) applied during the reaction time (RT) interval. This TMS-induced suppression of cortical drive leads to RT delays that can be used to assess cortical contributions to movement. Participants completed targeted flexion and extension movements of the wrist in a simple RT paradigm in response to a control auditory go signal or SAS. Occasionally, suprathreshold TMS was applied over the motor cortical representation for the prime mover. Results revealed that TMS significantly increased RT in all conditions. There was a significantly longer TMS-induced RT delay seen in extension movements than in flexion movements and a greater RT delay in movements initiated in response to control stimuli compared with SAS. These results suggest that the contribution of reticulospinal drive is larger for wrist flexion than for extension. Similarly, movements triggered involuntarily by an SAS appear to involve greater reticulospinal drive, and relatively less corticospinal drive, than those that are voluntarily initiated. NEW & NOTEWORTHY Through the use of the transcranial magnetic stimulation-induced silent period, we provide novel evidence for a greater contribution of reticulospinal drive, and a relative decrease in corticospinal drive, to movements involuntarily triggered by a startle compared with voluntary movements. These results also provide support for the notion that both cortical and reticular structures are involved in the neural pathway underlying startle-triggered movements. Furthermore, our results indicate greater reticulospinal contribution to wrist flexion than extension movements.

Mechanical perturbations can elicit triggered reactions in the absence of a startle response.

Perturbations delivered to the upper limbs elicit reflexive responses in stretched muscle at short- (M1: 25-50 ms) and long- (M2: 50-100 ms) latencies. When presented in a simple reaction time (RT) task, the perturbation can also elicit a preprogrammed voluntary response at a latency (< 100 ms) that overlaps the M2 response. This early appearance of the voluntary response following a proprioceptive stimulus causing muscle stretch is called a triggered reaction. Recent work has demonstrated that a perturbation also elicits activity in sternocleidomastoid (SCM) over a time-course consistent with the startle response and it was, therefore, proposed that the StartReact effect underlies triggered reactions (Ravichandran et al., Exp Brain Res 230:59-69, 2013). The present work investigated whether perturbation-evoked SCM activity results from startle or postural control and whether triggered reactions can also occur in the absence of startle. In Experiment 1, participants "compensated" against a wrist extension perturbation. A prepulse inhibition (PPI) stimulus (known to attenuate startle) was randomly presented before the perturbation. Rather than attenuating SCM activity, the responses in SCM were advanced by the PPI stimulus. In Experiment 2, participants "assisted" a wrist extension perturbation. The perturbation did not reliably elicit startle but despite this, two-thirds of trials had RTs of less than 100 ms and the earliest responses began at ~ 70 ms. These findings suggest that SCM activity following a perturbation is the result of postural control and is not related to startle. Moreover, an overt startle response is not a prerequisite for the elicitation of a triggered reaction.

Preparation of timing structure involves two independent sub-processes.

The current study examined the processes involved in the preparation of sequencing and timing initiation for multi-component responses. In two experiments, participants performed a reaction time (RT) task involving a three key-press sequence with either a simple (isochronous) or complex (non-isochronous) timing structure. Conditions involved a precue that provided information about all features of the movement (simple RT), no features of the movement (choice RT), sequencing only, or timing structure only. When sequencing was precued, RT decreased significantly as compared to choice RT, indicative of advance preparation of sequencing. When timing was precued, RT decreased significantly compared to choice RT when the timing structure was simple, suggesting that some aspect of timing preparation can occur prior to the go stimulus. However, even when the timing structure was known in advance, RT was still affected by timing complexity, confirming that some aspect of timing preparation cannot occur until after the onset of the stimulus and thus occurs during the RT interval. To explain these findings, we propose a two-component model of preparation for the timing initiation structure in which timing selection occurs in advance but timing implementation must occur following the go signal. These results support and extend previous findings regarding the independence of the processes associated with response sequencing and timing initiation.

Response preparation and execution during intentional bimanual pattern switching.

During continuous bimanual coordination, in-phase (IP; 0° relative phase) and anti-phase (AP; 180° relative phase) patterns can be stably performed without practice. Paradigms in which participants are required to intentionally switch between these coordination patterns have been used to investigate the interaction between the performer's intentions and intrinsic dynamics of the body's preferred patterns. The current study examined the processes associated with switching preparation and execution through the use of a startling acoustic stimulus (SAS) as the switch stimulus. A SAS is known to involuntarily trigger preprogrammed responses at a shortened latency and, thus, can be used to probe advance preparation. Participants performed cyclical IP and AP bimanual elbow extension-flexion movements in which they were required to switch patterns in response to an auditory switch cue, which was either nonstartling (80 dB) or a SAS (120 dB). Results indicated that reaction time to the switch stimulus (i.e., switch onset) was significantly reduced on startle trials, indicative of advance preparation of the switch response. Similarly, switching time was reduced on startle trials, which was attributed to increased neural activation caused by the SAS. Switching time was also shorter for AP to IP trials, but only when the switching stimulus occurred at either the midpoint or reversal locations within the movement cycle, suggesting that the switch location may affect the intrinsic dynamics of the system.NEW & NOTEWORTHY The current study provides novel information regarding preparation and execution of intentional switching between in-phase and anti-phase bimanual coordination patterns. Using a startling acoustic stimulus, we provide strong evidence that the switching response is prepared before the switch stimulus, and switch execution is accelerated by the startling stimulus. In addition, the time required to switch between patterns and relative limb contribution is dependent upon where in the movement cycle the switch stimulus occurred.

Investigation of timing preparation during response initiation and execution using a startling acoustic stimulus.

The purpose of the current study was to examine the processes involved in the preparation of timing during response initiation and execution through the use of a startling acoustic stimulus (SAS). In Experiment 1, participants performed a delayed response task in which a two key-press movement was to be initiated 200 ms after an imperative signal (IS) with either a short (200 ms) or long (500 ms) interval between key-presses. On selected trials, a SAS was presented to probe the preparation processes associated with the initiation delay and execution of the inter-key interval. The SAS resulted in a significant decrease in the initiation time, which was attributed to a speeding of pacemaker pulses used to time the delay interval, caused by an increased activation due to the SAS. Conversely, the SAS delayed the short inter-key interval, which was attributed to temporary interference with cortical processing. In Experiment 2, participants performed a 500-ms delayed response task involving two key-presses 200 ms apart. In this condition, the SAS resulted in significantly decreased initiation time and a delayed inter-key interval (p = .053). Collectively, these results support a different timeline for the preparation of the delay interval, which is thought to be prepared in advance of the IS, and the inter-key interval, which is thought to be prepared following the IS. This conclusion provides novel information with regard to timing preparation that is consistent with models in which response preparation, initiation, and execution are considered separate and dissociable processes.

Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation applied over the supplementary motor area delays spontaneous antiphase-to-in-phase transitions.

Coordinated bimanual oscillatory movements often involve one of two intrinsically stable phasing relationships characterized as in-phase (symmetrical) or antiphase (asymmetrical). The in-phase mode is typically more stable than antiphase, and if movement frequency is increasing during antiphase movements, a spontaneous transition to the in-phase pattern occurs. There is converging neurophysiological evidence that the supplementary motor area (SMA) plays a critical role in the successful performance of these patterns, especially during antiphase movements. We investigated whether modulating the excitability of the SMA via offline transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) would delay the onset of anti-to-in-phase transitions. Participants completed two sessions (separated by ∼48 h), each consisting of a pre- and post-tDCS block in which they performed metronome-paced trials of rhythmic in- and antiphase bimanual supination-pronation movements as target oscillation frequency was systematically increased. Anodal or cathodal tDCS was applied over the SMA between the pre- and post-tDCS blocks in each session. Following anodal tDCS, participants performed the antiphase pattern with increased accuracy and stability and were able to maintain the coordination pattern at a higher oscillation frequency. Antiphase performance was unchanged following cathodal tDCS, and neither tDCS polarity affected the in-phase mode. Our findings suggest increased SMA excitability induced by anodal tDCS can improve antiphase performance and adds to the accumulating evidence of the pivotal role of the SMA in interlimb coordination.

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.

Reduced motor preparation during dual-task performance: evidence from startle.

Previous studies have used a secondary probe reaction time (RT) task to assess attentional demands of a primary task. The current study used a startling acoustic stimulus (SAS) in a probe RT paradigm to test the hypothesis that attentional resources would be directly related to limitations in response preparation. Participants performed an easy or difficult version of a continuous primary task that was either primarily motor in nature (pursuit tracking) or cognitive (counting backward). Concurrently, participants responded to an auditory cue as fast as possible by performing a wrist extension secondary movement. On selected trials, the auditory cue was replaced with a SAS (120 dB), which is thought to involuntarily trigger a prepared response and thus bypass any response initiation bottleneck that may be present when trying to perform two movements. Although startle trials were performed at a shorter latency, both non-startle and startle probe trials resulted in a delayed RT, as compared to single-task trials, consistent with reduced preparation of the secondary task. In addition, analysis of SAS trial RT when a startle indicator was present versus absent provided evidence that the secondary task was at a lowered state of preparation when engaged in the cognitive primary task as compared to a motor primary task, suggesting a facilitative effect on preparatory activation when both the primary and secondary tasks are motoric in nature.

Switching between task control modes incurs greater reprogramming costs than programming the response de novo.

When performing synchronous hand and foot movements, the way the limbs are synchronized differs depending on the mode of control. When performed in a reaction time (RT) paradigm (reactive control), EMG onsets become synchronized resulting in asynchronous displacement onset. However, when the same movement is performed as an anticipation-timing task (predictive control), displacement onset is synchronized by unconsciously introducing a small delay between EMG onsets. The present experiment investigated the reprogramming costs associated with switching between predictive and reaction control modes. Participants (N = 12, 6F) were asked to simultaneously lift their right heel and right hand in an anticipation-timing task when a rotating clock hand reached a specified target. On some trials, an auditory stimulus was presented either 250 ms or 500 ms before the target and participants were instructed to execute the synchronous movement as quickly as possible after the signal (i.e., switch to reactive mode). Results showed that when the auditory stimulus was delivered 250 ms before the target, participants were unable to switch to a reactive control mode but did switch when the auditory stimulus was presented 500 ms before the target. As expected, the RT on switch trials was substantially longer (∼230 ms) than a simple RT control condition but was also significantly longer (∼130 ms) than a choice RT control condition. These results indicate that switching between control modes for a task involving the same musculature incurs reprogramming costs that are even greater than the time required to program the response de novo.