Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
3.9
3.3
Journals
Brain Sciences
Special Issues
Neuromodulation and Executive Control of Human Movements
share announcement

Neuromodulation and Executive Control of Human Movements

A special issue of Brain Sciences (ISSN 2076-3425). This special issue belongs to the section "Systems Neuroscience".

Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (30 August 2020) | Viewed by 15547

Special Issue Editor

Dr. Shapour Jaberzadeh

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation and Neuroplasticity Laboratory, Department of Physiotherapy, School of Primary and Allied Health Care, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Science, Monash University, 3800 Melbourne, Australia
Interests: non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS); cognition; balance; movement control; pain; transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS); transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS); neuroplasticity; corticospinal excitability; electromyography (EMG)
Special Issues, Collections and Topics in MDPI journals

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

The executive control of a task or a movement can be defined as the ability of the brain to coordinate its multiple sites to accomplish this task or movement. This may involve cognitive, sensory and motor cortices in the frontal, parietal and temporal lobes and subcortical structures in the basal ganglia, thalamus, cerebellum, brainstem and spinal cord. Neuromodulation of these neural circuits, whether electrical or magnetic, can affect this control by changing the activity of populations of neurons by releasing inhibitory or excitatory transmitters.

We invite authors to contribute to this Special issue of Brain Sciences, which is dedicated to the ways that modulation of different parts of the brain may affect the executive control of human movements, the mechanisms behind these effects, and the various modes of neuromodulatory techniques for enhancement of control as well as the new developments that are taking place in the field.

Dr. Shapour Jaberzadeh
Guest Editor

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Brain Sciences is an international peer-reviewed open access monthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 2200 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • executive control of movements
  • cognitive control of movements
  • sensori-motor control of movement
  • Balance control
  • neuromodulation
  • Learning
  • non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS)
  • transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS)
  • repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS)
  • transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS)
  • transcranial alternative current stimulation (tACS)
  • transcranial pulsed current stimulation (tPCS)
  • cerebellar tDCS
 

Published Papers (3 papers)

Download All Papers
Order results
Result details
Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

Jump to: Review, Other

13 pages, 2482 KiB  
Article
Cerebellar Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Reduces the Silent Period on Hand Muscle Electromyography During Force Control
by Akiyoshi Matsugi, Shinya Douchi, Kodai Suzuki, Kosuke Oku, Nobuhiko Mori, Hiroaki Tanaka, Satoru Nishishita, Kyota Bando, Yutaka Kikuchi and Yohei Okada
Brain Sci. 2020, 10(2), 63; https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci10020063 - 24 Jan 2020
Cited by 6 | Viewed by 4228
Abstract
This study aimed to investigate whether cerebellar transcranial magnetic stimulation (C-TMS) affected the cortical silent period (cSP) induced by TMS over the primary motor cortex (M1) and the effect of interstimulus interval (ISI) on cerebellar conditioning and TMS to the left M1 (M1-TMS). [...] Read more.
This study aimed to investigate whether cerebellar transcranial magnetic stimulation (C-TMS) affected the cortical silent period (cSP) induced by TMS over the primary motor cortex (M1) and the effect of interstimulus interval (ISI) on cerebellar conditioning and TMS to the left M1 (M1-TMS). Fourteen healthy adult participants were instructed to control the abduction force of the right index finger to 20% of the maximum voluntary contraction. M1-TMS was delivered during this to induce cSP on electromyograph of the right first dorsal interosseous muscle. TMS over the right cerebellum (C-TMS) was conducted prior to M1-TMS. In the first experiment, M1-TMS intensity was set to 1 or 1.3 × resting motor threshold (rMT) with 20-ms ISI. In the second experiment, the intensity was set to 1 × rMT with ISI of 0, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, or 80 ms, and no-C-TMS trials were inserted. In results, cSP was significantly shorter in 1 × rMT condition than in 1.3 × rMT by C-TMS, and cSP was significantly shorter for ISI of 20–40 ms than for the no-C-TMS condition. Further, motor evoked potential for ISI40-60 ms were significantly reduced than that for ISI0. Thus, C-TMS may reduce cSP induced by M1-TMS with ISI of 20–40 ms. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Neuromodulation and Executive Control of Human Movements)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

Review

Jump to: Research, Other

21 pages, 661 KiB  
Review
The Role of Movement Representation Techniques in the Motor Learning Process: A Neurophysiological Hypothesis and a Narrative Review
by Ferran Cuenca-Martínez, Luis Suso-Martí, Jose Vicente León-Hernández and Roy La Touche
Brain Sci. 2020, 10(1), 27; https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci10010027 - 02 Jan 2020
Cited by 20 | Viewed by 7566
Abstract
We present a neurophysiological hypothesis for the role of motor imagery (MI) and action observation (AO) training in the motor learning process. The effects of movement representation in the brain and those of the cortical–subcortical networks related to planning, executing, adjusting, and automating [...] Read more.
We present a neurophysiological hypothesis for the role of motor imagery (MI) and action observation (AO) training in the motor learning process. The effects of movement representation in the brain and those of the cortical–subcortical networks related to planning, executing, adjusting, and automating real movements share a similar neurophysiological activity. Coupled with the influence of certain variables related to the movement representation process, this neurophysiological activity is a key component of the present hypothesis. These variables can be classified into four domains: physical, cognitive–evaluative, motivational–emotional, and direct-modulation. The neurophysiological activity underlying the creation and consolidation of mnemonic representations of motor gestures as a prerequisite to motor learning might differ between AO and MI. Together with variations in cognitive loads, these differences might explain the differing results in motor learning. The mirror neuron system appears to function more efficiently through AO training than MI, and AO is less demanding in terms of cognitive load than MI. AO might be less susceptible to the influence of variables related to movement representation. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Neuromodulation and Executive Control of Human Movements)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

Other

Jump to: Research, Review

14 pages, 565 KiB  
Opinion
Promotion of Poststroke Motor-Function Recovery with Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation by Regulating the Interhemispheric Imbalance
by Xiaoxia Yuan, Yuan Yang, Na Cao and Changhao Jiang
Brain Sci. 2020, 10(9), 648; https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci10090648 - 18 Sep 2020
Cited by 11 | Viewed by 3299
Abstract
Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a noninvasive brain-stimulation technique that transiently modulates cerebral cortex excitability, achieving overall positive results in poststroke motor-function recovery. Excessive inhibition of the ipsilesional-affected hemisphere by the contralesional-unaffected hemisphere has seriously hindered poststroke motor-function recovery. Hence, intracortical disinhibition [...] Read more.
Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a noninvasive brain-stimulation technique that transiently modulates cerebral cortex excitability, achieving overall positive results in poststroke motor-function recovery. Excessive inhibition of the ipsilesional-affected hemisphere by the contralesional-unaffected hemisphere has seriously hindered poststroke motor-function recovery. Hence, intracortical disinhibition can be used as an approach to managing poststroke brain injury. This technique promotes neural plasticity for faster motor-function recovery. rTMS relieves unilateral inhibition of the brain function by regulatinga interhemispheric-imbalanced inhibition. This paper summarized 12 studies from 2016 to date, focusing on rTMS on motor function after acute and chronic stroke by regulating the interhemispheric imbalance of inhibitory inputs. Although rTMS studies have shown promising outcomes on recovery of motor functions in stroke patients, different intervention methods may lead to discrepancies in results. A uniform optimal stimulus model cannot routinely be used, mainly due to the stimulus schemes, stroke types and outcome-measuring differences among studies. Thus, the effect of rTMS on poststroke motor-function recovery should be investigated further to standardize the rTMS program for optimal poststroke motor-function recovery. More randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials with standardized rTMS protocols are needed to ensure the effectiveness of the treatment. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Neuromodulation and Executive Control of Human Movements)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
 
Displaying articles 1-3
Back to TopTop