Corticokinematic coherence mainly reflects movement-induced proprioceptive feedback.
Bottom Line: The afferent rPDC was 37% higher when tactile input was present, and it was at highest at F1 of the passive conditions; the efferent rPDC level did not differ between conditions.The apparent latency for the afferent input, estimated within the framework of the rPDC analysis, was 50-100 ms.The higher directional coupling between hand kinematics and SM1 activity in afferent than efferent direction strongly supports the view that CKC mainly reflects movement-related somatosensory proprioceptive afferent input to the contralateral SM1 cortex.
Affiliation: Brain Research Unit and MEG Core, O.V. Lounasmaa Laboratory, Aalto University School of Science, PO BOX 15100, FI-00076-AALTO Espoo, Finland. Electronic address: firstname.lastname@example.org.Show MeSH
Mentions: We here first sum up the fixed-pace CKC (coherence between finger kinematics and MEG) results reported by Piitulainen et al. (2013). Fig. 1A illustrates the spatial pattern of CKC at the sensor level. Statistically significant (p < 0.05) CKC peaked at F0 and F1 in all conditions, except in two subjects in active-touch at F0. CKC sources—as reconstructed with dynamic imaging of coherent sources (Gross et al., 2001)—were located in the hand area of the contralateral SM1 cortex, with no spatial differences between the four movement conditions (active/passive with touch/no-touch) at F0 and F1. As reported by Piitulainen et al. (2013), CKC level was statistically significantly affected by the task (active vs. passive) and frequency (F0 vs. F1), with an interaction between them, whereas tactile input (touch vs. no-touch) had no effect.
Affiliation: Brain Research Unit and MEG Core, O.V. Lounasmaa Laboratory, Aalto University School of Science, PO BOX 15100, FI-00076-AALTO Espoo, Finland. Electronic address: email@example.com.