The control and training of single motor units in isometric tasks are constrained by a common input signal

  1. Mario Bräcklein
  2. Deren Yusuf Barsakcioglu
  3. Jaime Ibáñez
  4. Jonathan Eden
  5. Etienne Burdet
  6. Carsten Mehring
  7. Dario Farina  Is a corresponding author
  1. Imperial College London, United Kingdom
  2. University of Freiburg, Germany

Abstract

Recent developments in neural interfaces enable the real-time and non-invasive tracking of motor neuron spiking activity. Such novel interfaces could provide a promising basis for human motor augmentation by extracting potentially high-dimensional control signals directly from the human nervous system. However, it is unclear how flexibly humans can control the activity of individual motor neurons to effectively increase the number of degrees-of-freedom available to coordinate multiple effectors simultaneously. Here, we provided human subjects (N=7) with real-time feedback on the discharge patterns of pairs of motor units (MUs) innervating a single muscle (tibialis anterior) and encouraged them to independently control the MUs by tracking targets in a 2D space. Subjects learned control strategies to achieve the target-tracking task for various combinations of MUs. These strategies rarely corresponded to a volitional control of independent input signals to individual MUs during the onset of neural activity. Conversely, MU activation was consistent with a common input to the MU pair, while individual activation of the MUs in the pair was predominantly achieved by alterations in de-recruitment order that could be explained with history-dependent changes in motor neuron excitability. These results suggest that flexible MU recruitment based on independent synaptic inputs to single MUs is unlikely, although de-recruitment might reflect varying inputs or modulations in the neuron's intrinsic excitability.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Mario Bräcklein

    Department of Bioengineering, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    Mario Bräcklein, is one inventor in a patent application (Neural interface. UK Patent application no. GB2014671.8. September 17, 2020) related to the methods and applications of this work..
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1537-7495
  2. Deren Yusuf Barsakcioglu

    Department of Bioengineering, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    Deren Yusuf Barsakcioglu, is an inventor in a patent (Neural 690 Interface. UK Patent application no. GB1813762.0. August 23, 2018) and in a patent application (Neural interface. UK Patent application no. GB2014671.8. September 17, 2020) related to the methods and applications of this work..
  3. Jaime Ibáñez

    Department of Bioengineering, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  4. Jonathan Eden

    Department of Bioengineering, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  5. Etienne Burdet

    Department of Bioengineering, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  6. Carsten Mehring

    Bernstein Center Freiburg, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8125-5205
  7. Dario Farina

    Department of Bioengineering, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    d.farina@imperial.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    Dario Farina, is an inventor in a patent (Neural 690 Interface. UK Patent application no. GB1813762.0. August 23, 2018) and in a patent application (Neural interface. UK Patent application no. GB2014671.8. September 17, 2020) related to the methods and applications of this work..
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-7883-2697

Funding

EPSRC Centre for Doctoral Training in Neurotechnology and Health

  • Mario Bräcklein

H2020 NIMA (FETOPEN 899626)

  • Deren Yusuf Barsakcioglu
  • Jaime Ibáñez
  • Jonathan Eden
  • Etienne Burdet
  • Carsten Mehring
  • Dario Farina

H2020 TRIMANUAL (MSCA 843408)

  • Jonathan Eden
  • Etienne Burdet

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Ethics

Human subjects: Informed consent and consent to publish was obtained from all subjects. The study was approved by the ethics committee at Imperial College London (reference number: 18IC4685).

Copyright

© 2022, Bräcklein et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 1,742
    views
  • 430
    downloads
  • 27
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Mario Bräcklein
  2. Deren Yusuf Barsakcioglu
  3. Jaime Ibáñez
  4. Jonathan Eden
  5. Etienne Burdet
  6. Carsten Mehring
  7. Dario Farina
(2022)
The control and training of single motor units in isometric tasks are constrained by a common input signal
eLife 11:e72871.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.72871

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.72871

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Ana Maria Ichim, Harald Barzan ... Raul Cristian Muresan
    Review Article

    Gamma oscillations in brain activity (30–150 Hz) have been studied for over 80 years. Although in the past three decades significant progress has been made to try to understand their functional role, a definitive answer regarding their causal implication in perception, cognition, and behavior still lies ahead of us. Here, we first review the basic neural mechanisms that give rise to gamma oscillations and then focus on two main pillars of exploration. The first pillar examines the major theories regarding their functional role in information processing in the brain, also highlighting critical viewpoints. The second pillar reviews a novel research direction that proposes a therapeutic role for gamma oscillations, namely the gamma entrainment using sensory stimulation (GENUS). We extensively discuss both the positive findings and the issues regarding reproducibility of GENUS. Going beyond the functional and therapeutic role of gamma, we propose a third pillar of exploration, where gamma, generated endogenously by cortical circuits, is essential for maintenance of healthy circuit function. We propose that four classes of interneurons, namely those expressing parvalbumin (PV), vasointestinal peptide (VIP), somatostatin (SST), and nitric oxide synthase (NOS) take advantage of endogenous gamma to perform active vasomotor control that maintains homeostasis in the neuronal tissue. According to this hypothesis, which we call GAMER (GAmma MEdiated ciRcuit maintenance), gamma oscillations act as a ‘servicing’ rhythm that enables efficient translation of neural activity into vascular responses that are essential for optimal neurometabolic processes. GAMER is an extension of GENUS, where endogenous rather than entrained gamma plays a fundamental role. Finally, we propose several critical experiments to test the GAMER hypothesis.

    1. Neuroscience
    John P Grogan, Matthias Raemaekers ... Sanjay G Manohar
    Research Article

    Motivation depends on dopamine, but might be modulated by acetylcholine which influences dopamine release in the striatum, and amplifies motivation in animal studies. A corresponding effect in humans would be important clinically, since anticholinergic drugs are frequently used in Parkinson’s disease, a condition that can also disrupt motivation. Reward and dopamine make us more ready to respond, as indexed by reaction times (RT), and move faster, sometimes termed vigour. These effects may be controlled by preparatory processes that can be tracked using electroencephalography (EEG). We measured vigour in a placebo-controlled, double-blinded study of trihexyphenidyl (THP), a muscarinic antagonist, with an incentivised eye movement task and EEG. Participants responded faster and with greater vigour when incentives were high, but THP blunted these motivational effects, suggesting that muscarinic receptors facilitate invigoration by reward. Preparatory EEG build-up (contingent negative variation [CNV]) was strengthened by high incentives and by muscarinic blockade, although THP reduced the incentive effect. The amplitude of preparatory activity predicted both vigour and RT, although over distinct scalp regions; frontal activity predicted vigour, whereas a larger, earlier, central component predicted RT. The incentivisation of RT was partly mediated by the CNV, though vigour was not. Moreover, the CNV mediated the drug’s effect on dampening incentives, suggesting that muscarinic receptors underlie the motivational influence on this preparatory activity. Taken together, these findings show that a muscarinic blocker impairs motivated action in healthy people, and that medial frontal preparatory neural activity mediates this for RT.