Back

Mental Tasks Induce Common Modulations of Oscillations in Cortex and Spinal Cord

Ofner, P.; Farina, D.; Mehring, C.

2025-03-13 neuroscience
10.1101/2024.11.08.615786 bioRxiv
Show abstract

We investigated whether power modulations of cortical oscillations induced by mental tasks are paralleled by the same modulations in spinal motor neurons. We recruited 15 human participants and recorded high-density electromyography signals (HD-EMG) from the tibialis anterior muscle, as well as electroencephalography (EEG) signals. The cumulative spike train (CST) was computed from the activity of spinal motor neurons decoded from HD-EMG signals. The participants performed sustained dorsiflexion concurrent with foot motor imagery, hand motor imagery, mental arithmetic, or no specific mental task. We found significant power correlations between CST and EEG across trials irrespective of the mental task and across mental tasks at the intra-muscular coherence peak (Kendalls{tau} coefficient{tau} trial = 0.08{+/-}0.10,{tau} task = 0.33{+/-}0.19, respectively; mean{+/-}std. dev.). CST power in beta and low-gamma bands could provide a novel control signal for neural interface applications, as power changes in these bands are not translated into actual force changes. To evaluate the potential of CST bands as a control signal, we classified the mental tasks from CST bandpower with a linear classifier and obtained classification accuracies slightly but significantly above chance level (30%{+/-}5%; chance level = 25%). These results show that mental tasks can modulate the power of cortical and spinal oscillations concurrently. This supports the notion that movement-unrelated oscillations can leak down from the cortex to the spinal level. Impact StatementSpike trains of spinal motor neurons exhibit frequency components above 10 Hz, which may partly reflect force-unrelated cortical oscillations and are modulated by mental tasks.

Published in Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation · training set

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.