Ipsilateral finger representations in the sensorimotor cortex are driven by active movement processes, not passive sensory input.

Hand and finger movements are mostly controlled through crossed corticospinal projections from the contralateral hemisphere. During unimanual movements, activity in the contralateral hemisphere is increased while the ipsilateral hemisphere is suppressed below resting baseline. Despite this suppression, unimanual movements can be decoded from ipsilateral activity alone. This indicates that ipsilateral activity patterns represent parameters of ongoing movement, but the origin and functional relevance of these representations is unclear. In this study, we asked whether ipsilateral representations are caused by active movement or whether they are driven by sensory input. Participants alternated between performing single finger presses and having fingers passively stimulated while we recorded brain activity using high-field (7T) functional imaging. We contrasted active and passive finger representations in sensorimotor areas of ipsilateral and contralateral hemispheres. Finger representations in the contralateral hemisphere were equally strong under passive and active conditions, highlighting the importance of sensory information in feedback control. In contrast, ipsilateral finger representations in the sensorimotor cortex were stronger during active presses. Furthermore, the spatial distribution of finger representations differed between hemispheres: the contralateral hemisphere showed the strongest finger representations in Brodmann areas 3a and 3b, whereas the ipsilateral hemisphere exhibited stronger representations in premotor and parietal areas. Altogether, our results suggest that finger representations in the two hemispheres have different origins: contralateral representations are driven by both active movement and sensory stimulation, whereas ipsilateral representations are mainly engaged during active movement. NEW & NOTEWORTHY Movements of the human body are mostly controlled by contralateral cortical regions. The function of ipsilateral activity during movements remains elusive. Using high-field neuroimaging, we investigated how human contralateral and ipsilateral hemispheres represent active and passive finger presses. We found that representations in contralateral sensorimotor cortex are equally strong during both conditions. Ipsilateral representations were mostly present during active movement, suggesting that sensorimotor areas do not receive direct sensory input from the ipsilateral hand.

Time- but not sleep-dependent consolidation of tDCS-enhanced visuomotor skills.

Consolidation of motor skills after training can occur in a time- or sleep-dependent fashion. Recent studies revealed time-dependent consolidation as a common feature of visuomotor tasks. We have previously shown that anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in combination with repeated motor training benefits consolidation by the induction of offline skill gains in a complex visuomotor task, preventing the regular occurrence of skill loss between days. Here, we asked 2 questions: What is the time course of consolidation between days for this task and do exogenously induced offline gains develop as a function of time or overnight sleep? We found that both the development of offline skill loss in sham-stimulated subjects and offline skill gains induced by anodal tDCS critically depend on the passage of time after training, but not on overnight sleep. These findings support the view that tDCS interacts directly with the physiological consolidation process. However, in a control experiment, anodal tDCS applied after the training did not induce skill gains, implying that coapplication of tDCS and training is required to induce offline skill gains, pointing to the initiation of consolidation already during training.

Effects of different electrical brain stimulation protocols on subcomponents of motor skill learning.

BACKGROUND: Noninvasive electrical brain stimulation (NEBS) with transcranial direct current (tDCS) or random noise stimulation (tRNS) applied to the primary motor cortex (M1) can augment motor learning. OBJECTIVE: We tested whether different types of stimulation alter particular aspects of learning a tracing task over three consecutive days, namely skill acquisition (online/within session effects) or consolidation (offline/between session effects). METHODS: Motor training on a tracing task over three consecutive days was combined with different types and montages of stimulation (tDCS, tRNS). RESULTS: Unilateral M1 stimulation using tRNS as well as unilateral and bilateral M1 tDCS all enhanced motor skill learning compared to sham stimulation. In all groups, this appeared to be driven by online effects without an additional offline effect. Unilateral tDCS resulted in large skill gains immediately following the onset of stimulation, while tRNS exerted more gradual effects. Control stimulation of the right temporal lobe did not enhance skill learning relative to sham. CONCLUSIONS: The mechanisms of action of tDCS and tRNS are likely different. Hence, the time course of skill improvement within sessions could point to specific and temporally distinct interactions with the physiological process of motor skill learning. Exploring the parameters of NEBS on different tasks and in patients with brain injury will allow us to maximize the benefits of NEBS for neurorehabilitation.

Transcranial direct current stimulation of right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex does not affect model-based or model-free reinforcement learning in humans.

There is broad consensus that the prefrontal cortex supports goal-directed, model-based decision-making. Consistent with this, we have recently shown that model-based control can be impaired through transcranial magnetic stimulation of right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in humans. We hypothesized that an enhancement of model-based control might be achieved by anodal transcranial direct current stimulation of the same region. We tested 22 healthy adult human participants in a within-subject, double-blind design in which participants were given Active or Sham stimulation over two sessions. We show Active stimulation had no effect on model-based control or on model-free ('habitual') control compared to Sham stimulation. These null effects are substantiated by a power analysis, which suggests that our study had at least 60% power to detect a true effect, and by a Bayesian model comparison, which favors a model of the data that assumes stimulation had no effect over models that assume stimulation had an effect on behavioral control. Although we cannot entirely exclude more trivial explanations for our null effect, for example related to (faults in) our experimental setup, these data suggest that anodal transcranial direct current stimulation over right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex does not improve model-based control, despite existing evidence that transcranial magnetic stimulation can disrupt such control in the same brain region.