Sign in to use this feature.

Years

Between: -

Subjects

remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline

Journals

Article Types

Countries / Regions

Search Results (2)

Search Parameters:
Keywords = intertrial priming

Order results
Result details
Results per page
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
17 pages, 1761 KiB  
Article
Corticomotor Plasticity Underlying Priming Effects of Motor Imagery on Force Performance
by Typhanie Dos Anjos, Aymeric Guillot, Yann Kerautret, Sébastien Daligault and Franck Di Rienzo
Brain Sci. 2022, 12(11), 1537; https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci12111537 - 13 Nov 2022
Cited by 12 | Viewed by 2727
Abstract
The neurophysiological processes underlying the priming effects of motor imagery (MI) on force performance remain poorly understood. Here, we tested whether the priming effects of embedded MI practice involved short-term changes in corticomotor connectivity. In a within-subjects counterbalanced experimental design, participants (n [...] Read more.
The neurophysiological processes underlying the priming effects of motor imagery (MI) on force performance remain poorly understood. Here, we tested whether the priming effects of embedded MI practice involved short-term changes in corticomotor connectivity. In a within-subjects counterbalanced experimental design, participants (n = 20) underwent a series of experimental sessions consisting of successive maximal isometric contractions of elbow flexor muscles. During inter-trial rest periods, we administered MI, action observation (AO), and a control passive recovery condition. We collected electromyograms (EMG) from both agonists and antagonists of the force task, in addition to electroencephalographic (EEG) brain potentials during force trials. Force output was higher during MI compared to AO and control conditions (both p < 0.01), although fatigability was similar across experimental conditions. We also found a weaker relationship between triceps brachii activation and force output during MI and AO compared to the control condition. Imaginary coherence topographies of alpha (8–12 Hz) oscillations revealed increased connectivity between EEG sensors from central scalp regions and EMG signals from agonists during MI, compared to AO and control. Present results suggest that the priming effects of MI on force performance are mediated by a more efficient cortical drive to motor units yielding reduced agonist/antagonist coactivation. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Sensory and Motor Neuroscience)
Show Figures

Figure 1

8 pages, 335 KiB  
Article
Negative versus Positive Priming: When Are Distractors Inhibited?
by Stefan Van der Stigchel and Martijn Meeter
J. Eye Mov. Res. 2017, 10(2), 1-8; https://doi.org/10.16910/jemr.10.2.6 - 20 May 2017
Viewed by 69
Abstract
Visual attention is guided by the history of selections in previous trials, an effect usually referred to as intertrial priming. The aim of the present study was to investigate whether such priming in visual search is due to a strengthening of the target [...] Read more.
Visual attention is guided by the history of selections in previous trials, an effect usually referred to as intertrial priming. The aim of the present study was to investigate whether such priming in visual search is due to a strengthening of the target signal, or the suppression of the distractor signal. In two experiments, we examined the deviation of saccade endpoints in situations in which the target and distractors were presented in relative close proximity. We found both negative and positive priming, irrespective of whether the repeating feature was relevant or irrelevant. This finding is in contrast to previous results with this paradigm, based on which we concluded that visual priming is strictly the result of boosting perceptual target signals. Based on the differences between these experiments, we conclude that the number of distractors is essential in observing negative priming. We propose that negative priming is solely observed when multiple distractors result in either strong inhibition of distractor features, or strong adaptation to them. Whereas positive priming seems to be a robust mechanism, negative priming is only present if there are multiple distractors. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Back to TopTop