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.

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.

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.

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.

Sub-threshold transcranial magnetic stimulation applied after the go-signal facilitates reaction time under control but not startle conditions.

The presentation of a startling acoustic stimulus (SAS) in a simple reaction time (RT) task significantly reduces RT due to the involuntary early initiation of a prepared movement; however, the underlying neural mechanism remains unclear. It has been proposed that a SAS triggers a cortically stored motor program by involuntarily increasing initiation-related activation. Sub-threshold transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) can be used to investigate cortical processes, as it increases cortical excitability for 6-30 ms and significantly reduces RT. The purpose of the present experiments was to determine whether the application of sub-threshold TMS over motor cortex in close temporal proximity to a SAS would facilitate startle RT in the same manner as control RT, providing evidence for cortical involvement in startle-related RTs. Participants completed a simple RT task requiring targeted wrist extension in response to an auditory go-signal, which was randomly replaced by a SAS on 25% of trials. On a subset of trials, sub-threshold TMS was applied 30 ms following the go-signal in control trials or at -15, 0, +15 or +30 ms with respect to the SAS in startle trials. In all three experiments, sham and real TMS significantly reduced RT in control trials, with real TMS having a larger effect, but there was no effect of either real or sham TMS on startle-related RT. These results suggest that there may be limited cortical involvement in the initiation of movements in response to a SAS. As an alternative, startle may produce the fastest possible RTs, with little room for additional facilitation.

Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation over the primary motor cortex does not enhance the learning benefits of self-controlled feedback schedules.

A distinct learning advantage has been shown when participants control their knowledge of results (KR) scheduling during practice compared to when the same KR schedule is imposed on the learner without choice (i.e., yoked schedules). Although the learning advantages of self-controlled KR schedules are well-documented, the brain regions contributing to these advantages remain unknown. Identifying key brain regions would not only advance our theoretical understanding of the mechanisms underlying self-controlled learning advantages, but would also highlight regions that could be targeted in more applied settings to boost the already beneficial effects of self-controlled KR schedules. Here, we investigated whether applying anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to the primary motor cortex (M1) would enhance the typically found benefits of learning a novel motor skill with a self-controlled KR schedule. Participants practiced a spatiotemporal task in one of four groups using a factorial combination of KR schedule (self-controlled vs. yoked) and tDCS (anodal vs. sham). Testing occurred on two consecutive days with spatial and temporal accuracy measured on both days and learning was assessed using 24-h retention and transfer tests without KR. All groups improved their performance in practice and a significant effect for practicing with a self-controlled KR schedule compared to a yoked schedule was found for temporal accuracy in transfer, but a similar advantage was not evident in retention. There were no significant differences as a function of KR schedule or tDCS for spatial accuracy in retention or transfer. The lack of a significant tDCS effect suggests that M1 may not strongly contribute to self-controlled KR learning advantages; however, caution is advised with this interpretation as typical self-controlled learning benefits were not strongly replicated in the present experiment.

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.

Go-activation endures following the presentation of a stop-signal: evidence from startle.

It has been proposed that, in a stop-signal task (SST), independent go- and stop-processes "race" to control behavior. If the go-process wins, an overt response is produced, whereas, if the stop-process wins, the response is withheld. One prediction that follows from this proposal is that, if the activation associated with one process is enhanced, it is more likely to win the race. We looked to determine whether these initiation and inhibition processes (and thus response outcomes) could be manipulated by using a startling acoustic stimulus (SAS), which has been shown to provide additional response activation. In the present study, participants were to respond to a visual go-stimulus; however, if a subsequent stop-signal appeared, they were to inhibit the response. The stop-signal was presented at a delay corresponding to a probability of responding of 0.4 (determined from a baseline block of trials). On stop-trials, a SAS was presented either simultaneously with the go-signal or stop-signal or 100, 150, or 200 ms following the stop-signal. Results showed that presenting a SAS during stop-trials led to an increase in probability of responding when presented with or following the stop-signal. The latency of SAS responses at the stop-signal + 150 ms and stop-signal + 200 ms probe times suggests that they would have been voluntarily inhibited but instead were involuntarily initiated by the SAS. Thus results demonstrate that go-activation endures even 200 ms following a stop-signal and remains accessible well after the response has been inhibited, providing evidence against a winner-take-all race between independent go- and stop-processes. NEW & NOTEWORTHY: In this study, a startling acoustic stimulus (SAS) was used to determine whether response outcome could be manipulated in a stop-signal task. Results revealed that presenting a SAS during stop-signal trials led to an increase in probability of responding even when presented 200 ms following the stop-signal. The latency of SAS responses indicates that go-activation remains accessible and modifiable well after the response is voluntarily inhibited, providing evidence against an irrevocable commitment to inhibition.

Foreknowledge of an impending startling stimulus does not affect the proportion of startle reflexes or latency of StartReact responses.

During a simple reaction time (RT) task, movements can be initiated early and involuntarily through presentation of a loud startling acoustic stimulus (SAS), a phenomenon termed the StartReact effect. In order to infer that activity in startle-related structures led to the early response triggering, it is important to observe a concurrent startle reflex in sternocleidomastoid. It is generally accepted that to consistently elicit a startle reflex, the SAS must be both intense and unpredictable. However, it remains unclear what effect explicit foreknowledge of an impending SAS has on the effectiveness of a SAS to elicit a startle reflex when preparing a motor response. To test this, participants completed two separate blocks of a simple RT task (counterbalanced order), where the control auditory go-signal was replaced with a SAS on 20 % of trials. In an unwarned block, knowledge of the trial type (SAS vs. control) was not provided in advance, while in a warned block, the trial type was forewarned. Results revealed that while foreknowledge of an impending SAS reduced the magnitude of the startle reflex, it did not affect the proportion of startle reflexes elicited or the magnitude of the StartReact effect. An increase in control trial RT was observed during the unwarned block, but only when it was performed first. These results indicate that preparation of a motor response leads to sufficiently increased activation in startle-related neural structures such that even with explicit knowledge of an upcoming SAS, participants are unable to proactively gate the upcoming sensory input.

Startle reveals decreased response preparatory activation during a stop-signal task.

In a stop-signal task participants are instructed to initiate a movement in response to a go signal, but to inhibit this movement if an infrequent stop signal is presented after the go. Reaction time (RT) in a stop-signal task is typically longer compared with that in a simple RT task, which may be attributed to a reduced readiness to initiate the response caused by the possibility of having to inhibit the response. The purpose of this experiment was to probe the preparatory activation level of the motor response during a stop-signal task using a startling acoustic stimulus (SAS), which has been shown to involuntarily trigger sufficiently prepared responses at a short latency. Participants completed two separate tasks: a simple RT task, followed by a stop-signal RT task. During both tasks, an SAS (120 dB) was pseudorandomly presented concurrently with the go signal. As expected, RT during the simple RT task was significantly shorter than during the stop-signal task. A significant reduction in RT was noted when an SAS was presented during the simple RT task; however, during the stop-signal task, an SAS resulted in either a significant speeding or a moderate delay in RT. Additionally, the subset of SAS trial responses with the shortest RT latencies produced during the stop-signal task were also delayed compared with the short-latency SAS trial responses observed during the simple RT task. Despite evidence that a response was prepared in advance of the go signal during a stop-signal task, it appears that the amount of preparatory activation was reduced compared with that achieved during a simple RT task.

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.

Neural processes mediating the preparation and release of focal motor output are suppressed or absent during imagined movement.

Movements that are executed or imagined activate a similar subset of cortical regions, but the extent to which this activity represents functionally equivalent neural processes is unclear. During preparation for an executed movement, presentation of a startling acoustic stimulus (SAS) evokes a premature release of the planned movement with the spatial and temporal features of the tasks essentially intact. If imagined movement incorporates the same preparatory processes as executed movement, then a SAS should release the planned movement during preparation. This hypothesis was tested using an instructed-delay cueing paradigm during which subjects were required to rapidly release a handheld weight while maintaining the posture of the arm or to perform first-person imagery of the same task while holding the weight. In a subset of trials, a SAS was presented at 1500, 500, or 200 ms prior to the release cue. Task-appropriate preparation during executed and imagined movements was confirmed by electroencephalographic recording of a contingent negative variation waveform. During preparation for executed movement, a SAS often resulted in premature release of the weight with the probability of release progressively increasing from 24 % at -1500 ms to 80 % at -200 ms. In contrast, the SAS rarely (<2 % of trials) triggered a release of the weight during imagined movement. However, the SAS frequently evoked the planned postural response (suppression of bicep brachii muscle activity) irrespective of the task or timing of stimulation (even during periods of postural hold without preparation). These findings provide evidence that neural processes mediating the preparation and release of the focal motor task (release of the weight) are markedly attenuated or absent during imagined movement and that postural and focal components of the task are prepared independently.

Degraded expression of learned feedforward control in movements released by startle.

Recent work has shown that preplanned motor programs can be rapidly released via fast conducting pathways using a startling acoustic stimulus. Our question was whether the startle-elicited response might also release a recently learned internal model, which draws on experience to predict and compensate for expected perturbations in a feedforward manner. Our initial investigation using adaptation to robotically produced forces showed some evidence of this, but the results were potentially confounded by co-contraction caused by startle. In this study, we eliminated this confound by asking subjects to make reaching movements in the presence of a visual distortion. Results show that a startle stimulus (1) decreased performance of the recently learned task and (2) reduced after-effect magnitude. Since the recall of learned control was reduced, but not eliminated during startle trials, we suggest that multiple neural centers (cortical and subcortical) are involved in such learning and adaptation. These findings have implications for motor training in areas such as piloting, teleoperation, sports, and rehabilitation.

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.

Do greater rates of body heat storage precede the accelerated reduction of self-paced exercise intensity in the heat?

AIM: To reevaluate the previous hypothesis that greater reductions in self-paced exercise intensity in the heat are mediated by early differences in the rate of body heat storage (S). METHODS: Eight trained volunteers cycled in 19 °C/1.8 kPa (COOL), 25 °C/1.2 kPa (NORM), and 34 °C/1.6 kPa (HOT), while maintaining an RPE of 16. Potential differences in S following the onset of exercise were assessed by comparing rates of esophageal temperature change (ΔT es/Δt); and estimated S values using a traditional two-compartment thermometric model (S therm) of changes in rectal (T re) and skin (T sk) temperature, and partitional calorimetry (S cal). RESULTS: After 15 min of exercise, workload decreased more in HOT vs. COOL (P = 0.03), resulting in a shorter time (HOT: 40.7 ± 14.9 min; COOL: 53.5 ± 18.7 min; P = 0.04) to 70 % of initial workload. However, there were no preceding differences in ΔT es/Δt between conditions (P = 0.18). S therm values were different between HOT and COOL during the first 5 min of exercise (P < 0.05), primarily due to negative S therm values (-32 ± 15 kJ min(-1)) in COOL, which according to partitional calorimetric measurements, required improbably high (~56 kJ min(-1)) rates of evaporation when no sweating on the back and thigh was observed until after 7.6 ± 1.5 min and 4.8 ± 1.7 min of exercise, respectively. S cal values in the first 5 min of exercise confirmed S was actually positive in COOL (+21 ± 8 kJ min(-1)) and not negative. Different S therm values following the onset of exercise at different environmental temperatures are simply due to transient differences in the rate of change in T sk. CONCLUSION: Reductions in self-paced exercise intensity in the heat are not mediated by early differences in S following the onset of exercise.