Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Brief Communication
  • Published:

Premotor cortex modulates somatosensory cortex during voluntary movements without proprioceptive feedback

Nature Neuroscience volume 10, pages 417–419 (2007)Cite this article

Abstract

Movement perception relies on sensory feedback, but the involvement of efference copies remains unclear. We investigated movements without proprioceptive feedback using ischemic nerve block during fMRI in healthy humans, and found preserved activation of the primary somatosensory cortex. This activation was associated with increased interaction with premotor cortex during voluntary movements, which demonstrates that perception of movements relies in part on predictions of sensory consequences of voluntary movements that are mediated by the premotor cortex.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Somatosensory and premotor regions.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Flanagan, J.R., Vetter, P., Johansson, R.S. & Wolpert, D.M. Curr. Biol. 13, 146–150 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. von Holst, E. & Mittelstaedt, H. Naturwissenschaften 37, 464–476 (1950).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Sperry, R.W. J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol. 43, 482–489 (1950).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Taub, E., Ellman, S.J. & Berman, A.J. Science 151, 593–594 (1966).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Forget, R. & Lamarre, Y. Hum. Neurobiol. 6, 27–37 (1987).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Cole, J.D. & Katifi, H.A. Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol. 80, 103–107 (1991).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Sinclair, D.C. J. Neurophysiol. 11, 75–92 (1948).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Laszlo, J.I. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 18, 1–8 (1966).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hoffmann, P. (Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1922).

  10. Blakemore, S.-J., Wolpert, D.M. & Frith, C. Nat. Neurosci. 1, 635–640 (1998).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Haggard, P. & Whitford, B. Brain Res. Cog. Brain Res. 19, 52–58 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Ellaway, P.H., Prochazka, A., Chan, M. & Gauthier, M.J. J. Physiol. (Lond) 556, 651–660 (2004).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Büchel, C. & Friston, K.J. Cereb. Cortex 7, 768–778 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Blankenburg, F., Ruff, C.C., Deichmann, R., Rees, G. & Driver, J. PLoS Biol. 4, e69 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Tanné-Gariépy, J., Rouiller, E.M. & Boussaoud, D. Exp. Brain Res. 145, 91–103 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank T.E. Lund, J.B. Rowe and the Simon Spies Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Exercise and Sport Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Blegdamsvej 3, Panum Institute 24.6, Copenhagen, DK-2200, Denmark

    Mark Schram Christensen, Jesper Lundbye-Jensen, Svend Sparre Geertsen, Tue Hvass Petersen & Jens Bo Nielsen

  2. Danish Research Centre for Magnetic Resonance, Copenhagen University Hospital Hvidovre, Kettegård Allé 30, Hvidovre, DK-2650, Denmark

    Mark Schram Christensen & Olaf B Paulson

  3. Department of Neuroscience and Pharmacology, Panum Institute, University of Copenhagen, Blegdamsvej 3, Copenhagen, DK-2200, Denmark

    Jesper Lundbye-Jensen, Svend Sparre Geertsen, Tue Hvass Petersen & Jens Bo Nielsen

  4. Department of Neurology, Neurobiology Research Unit, The Neuroscience Centre, Rigshospitalet, building 9201, Copenhagen University Hospital, Blegdamsvej 9, Copenhagen, DK-2100, Denmark

    Olaf B Paulson

Authors
  1. Mark Schram Christensen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jesper Lundbye-Jensen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Svend Sparre Geertsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tue Hvass Petersen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Olaf B Paulson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jens Bo Nielsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

M.S.C. designed and performed the experiment, conducted the data analysis and wrote the manuscript. J.L.-J., S.S.G. and T.H.P. all performed the experiment. O.B.P. supervised the experiment, provided the scanner facilities and handled the ethical approval. J.B.N. designed, supervised and conducted the experiments and helped write the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark Schram Christensen.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Fig. 1

H-reflex measurements before and after cuff inflation recorded at regular intervals until it disappeared. (PDF 146 kb)

Supplementary Fig. 2

Regions depicted in green-yellow display regions that are significantly more activated during INB than in pre, post and post baseline in the control experiment without visual feedback, i.e. the conjunction (C2n>C1n ^ C2n>C3n ^ C2n>C4n) (thresholded at q<0.05 FDR-correction). In red is depicted the regions of vPMC showing more activation in the main experiment during INB. (PDF 304 kb)

Supplementary Fig. 3

Regions depicted in green show a higher correlation with the activity in S1 during INB than before INB in the main experiment. Regions depicted in yellow show an effect of cuff inflation before sensory block, i.e. activation related to the extra sensory stimulation that the cuff inflation might cause. (PDF 269 kb)

Supplementary Fig. 4

S1 activation decrease during INB with electrical stimulation in two subjects. (PDF 267 kb)

Supplementary Fig. 5

Regions showing increased activation during INB compared with the situation before INB, i.e. the contrasts C2>C1, during voluntary movements. (PDF 510 kb)

Supplementary Fig. 6

Maximum intensity projections from the control experiment without visual feedback showing regions where there is more activation during INB C2n compared to a – pre INB and b – pre INB with inflated cuff. (PDF 217 kb)

Supplementary Table 1 (PDF 86 kb)

Supplementary Table 2 (PDF 76 kb)

Supplementary Methods (PDF 166 kb)

Supplementary Results (PDF 105 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Christensen, M., Lundbye-Jensen, J., Geertsen, S. et al. Premotor cortex modulates somatosensory cortex during voluntary movements without proprioceptive feedback. Nat Neurosci 10, 417–419 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1873

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1873

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing