Recovery of hand function following lesions in the primary motor cortex (M1) is associated with a reorganization of premotor areas in the ipsilesional hemisphere, and this reorganization depends on the size of the lesion. It is not clear how lesion size affects motor representations in the contralesional hemisphere and how the effects in the 2 hemispheres compare. Our goal was to study how lesion size affects motor representations in the ipsilesional and contralesional hemispheres. In rats, we induced lesions of different sizes in the caudal forelimb area (CFA), the equivalent of M1. The effective lesion volume in each animal was quantified histologically. Behavioral recovery was evaluated with the Montoya Staircase task for 28 days after the lesion. Then, the organization of the CFA and the rostral forelimb area (RFA)—the putative premotor area in rats—in the 2 cerebral hemispheres was studied with intracortical microstimulation mapping techniques. The distal forelimb representation in the RFA of both the ipsilesional and contralesional hemispheres was positively correlated with the size of the lesion. In contrast, lesion size had no effect on the contralesional CFA, and there was no relationship between movement representations in the 2 hemispheres. Finally, only the contralesional RFA was negatively correlated with chronic motor deficits of the paretic forelimb. Our data show that lesion size has comparable effects on motor representations in premotor areas of both hemispheres and suggest that the contralesional premotor cortex may play a greater role in the recovery of the paretic forelimb following large lesions.
Unilateral arm movements require trunk stabilization through bilateral contraction of axial muscles. Interhemispheric interactions between primary motor cortices (M1) could enable such coordinated contractions, but these mechanisms are largely unknown. Using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), we characterized interhemispheric interactions between M1 representations of the trunk-stabilizing muscles erector spinae at the first lumbar vertebra (ES L1) during a right isometric shoulder flexion. These interactions were compared with those of the anterior deltoid (AD), the main agonist in this task, and the first dorsal interosseous (FDI). TMS over the right M1 elicited ipsilateral silent periods (iSP) in all three muscles on the right side. In ES L1, but not in AD or FDI, ipsilateral motor evoked potential (iMEP) could precede the iSP or replace it. iMEP amplitude was not significantly different whether ES L1 was used to stabilize the trunk or was voluntarily contracted. TMS at the cervicomedullary junction showed that the size of cervicomedullary evoked potential was unchanged during the iSP but increased during iMEP, suggesting that the iSP, but not the iMEP, is due to intracortical mechanisms. Using a dual-coil paradigm with two coils over the left and right M1, interhemispheric inhibition could be evoked at interstimulus intervals of 6 ms in ES L1 and 8 ms in AD and FDI. Together, these results suggest that interhemispheric inhibition is dominant when axial muscles are involved in a stabilizing task. The ipsilateral facilitation could be evoked by ipsilateral or subcortical pathways and could be used depending on the role axial muscles play in the task.NEW & NOTEWORTHY The mechanisms involved in the bilateral coordination of axial muscles during unilateral arm movement are poorly understood. We thus investigated the nature of interhemispheric interactions in axial muscles during arm motor tasks in healthy subjects. By combining different methodologies, we showed that trunk muscles receive both inhibitory and facilitatory cortical outputs during activation of arm muscles. We propose that inhibition may be conveyed mainly through interhemispheric mechanisms and facilitation by subcortical mechanisms or ipsilateral pathways.
A rapidly growing number of studies using inhibition of the contralesional hemisphere after stroke are reporting improvement in motor performance of the paretic hand. These studies have used different treatment onset time, duration and non-invasive methods of inhibition. Whereas these results are encouraging, several questions regarding the mechanisms of inhibition and the most effective treatment parameters are currently unanswered. In the present study, we used a rat model of cortical lesion to study the effects of GABA-mediated inactivation on motor recovery. In particular, we were interested in understanding better the effect of inactivation duration when it is initiated within hours following a cortical lesion. Cortical lesions were induced with endothelin-1 microinjections. The contralesional hemisphere was inactivated with continuous infusion of the GABA-A agonist Muscimol for 3, 7 or 14days in three different groups of animals. In a fourth group, Muscimol was infused at slower rate for 14days to provide additional insights on the relation between the effects of inactivation on the non-paretic forelimb behavior and the recovery of the paretic forelimb. In spontaneously recovered animals, the lesion caused a sustained bias to use the non-paretic forelimb and long-lasting grasping deficits with the paretic forelimb. Contralesional inactivation produced a general decrease of behavioral activity, affected the spontaneous use of the forelimbs and caused a specific reduction of the non-paretic forelimb function. The intensity and the duration of these behavioral effects varied in the different experimental groups. For the paretic forelimb, increasing inactivation duration accelerated the recovery of grasping function. Both groups with 14days of inactivation had similar recovery profiles and performed better than animals that spontaneously recovered. Whereas the plateau performance of the paretic forelimb correlated with the duration of contralesional inactivation, it was not correlated with the spontaneous use of the forelimbs or with grasping performance of the non-paretic hand. Our results support that contralesional inactivation initiated within hours after a cortical lesion can improve recovery of the paretic forelimb. In our model, increasing the duration of the inactivation improved motor outcomes but the spontaneous use and motor performance of the non-paretic forelimb had no impact on recovery of the paretic forelimb.
'%3e%3cpath fill='%23012169' d='M0 0v30h60V0z'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='6' d='m0 0 60 30m0-30L0 30'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23C8102E' stroke-width='4' d='m0 0 60 30m0-30L0 30' clip-path='url(%23b)'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='10' d='M30 0v30M0 15h60'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23C8102E' stroke-width='6' d='M30 0v30M0 15h60'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)