Abstract
A remarkable feature of motor control is the ability to coordinate movements across distinct body parts into a consistent, skilled action. To reach and grasp an object, ‘gross’ arm and ‘fine’ dexterous movements must be coordinated as a single action. How the nervous system achieves this coordination is currently unknown. One possibility is that, with training, gross and fine movements are co-optimized to produce a coordinated action; alternatively, gross and fine movements may be modularly refined to function together. To address this question, we recorded neural activity in the primary motor cortex and dorsolateral striatum during reach-to-grasp skill learning in rats. During learning, the refinement of fine and gross movements was behaviorally and neurally dissociable. Furthermore, inactivation of the primary motor cortex and dorsolateral striatum had distinct effects on skilled fine and gross movements. Our results indicate that skilled movement coordination is achieved through emergent modular neural control.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The data used for the analyses that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Code availability
The code used for the analyses that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
References
Wang, X. et al. Deconstruction of corticospinal circuits for goal-directed motor skills. Cell 171, 440–455.e14 (2017).
Whishaw, I. Q. An endpoint, descriptive, and kinematic comparison of skilled reaching in mice (Mus musculus) with rats (Rattus norvegicus). Behav. Brain Res. 78, 101–111 (1996).
Diedrichsen, J., Shadmehr, R. & Ivry, R. B. The coordination of movement: optimal feedback control and beyond. Trends Cogn. Sci. 14, 31–39 (2010).
Todorov, E. & Jordan, M. I. Optimal feedback control as a theory of motor coordination. Nat. Neurosci. 5, 1226–1235 (2002).
Kargo, W. J. & Nitz, D. A. Improvements in the signal-to-noise ratio of motor cortex cells distinguish early versus late phases of motor skill learning. J. Neurosci. 24, 5560–5569 (2004).
Li, Q. et al. Refinement of learned skilled movement representation in motor cortex deep output layer. Nat. Commun. 8, 15834 (2017).
Ramanathan, D. S., Gulati, T. & Ganguly, K. Sleep-dependent reactivation of ensembles in motor cortex promotes skill consolidation. PLoS Biol. 13, e1002263 (2015).
Santos, F. J., Oliveira, R. F., Jin, X. & Costa, R. M. Corticostriatal dynamics encode the refinement of specific behavioral variability during skill learning. eLife 4, e09423 (2015).
Kawai, R. et al. Motor cortex is required for learning but not for executing a motor skill. Neuron 86, 800–812 (2015).
Costa, R. M., Cohen, D. & Nicolelis, M. A. L. Differential corticostriatal plasticity during fast and slow motor skill learning in mice. Curr. Biol. 14, 1124–1134 (2004).
Kupferschmidt, D. A., Juczewski, K., Cui, G., Johnson, K. A. & Lovinger, D. M. Parallel, but dissociable, processing in discrete corticostriatal inputs encodes skill learning. Neuron 96, 476–489.e5 (2017).
Yin, H. H. et al. Dynamic reorganization of striatal circuits during the acquisition and consolidation of a skill. Nat. Neurosci. 12, 333–341 (2009).
Rueda-Orozco, P. E. & Robbe, D. The striatum multiplexes contextual and kinematic information to constrain motor habits execution. Nat. Neurosci. 18, 453–460 (2015).
Hintiryan, H. et al. The mouse cortico-striatal projectome. Nat. Neurosci. 19, 1100–1114 (2016).
Wong, C. C., Ramanathan, D. S., Gulati, T., Won, S. J. & Ganguly, K. An automated behavioral box to assess forelimb function in rats. J. Neurosci. Methods 246, 30–37 (2015).
Lalla, L., Rueda Orozco, P. E., Jurado-Parras, M. T., Brovelli, A. & Robbe, D. Local or not local: investigating the nature of striatal theta oscillations in behaving rats. eNeuro 4, ENEURO.0128-17.2017 (2017).
Hall, T. M., de Carvalho, F. & Jackson, A. A common structure underlies low-frequency cortical dynamics in movement, sleep, and sedation. Neuron 83, 1185–1199 (2014).
Riehle, A., Wirtssohn, S., Grün, S. & Brochier, T. Mapping the spatio-temporal structure of motor cortical LFP and spiking activities during reach-to-grasp movements. Front. Neural Circuits 7, 48 (2013).
Turner, R. S. & Desmurget, M. Basal ganglia contributions to motor control: a vigorous tutor. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 20, 704–716 (2010).
Mazzoni, P., Hristova, A. & Krakauer, J. W. Why don’t we move faster? Parkinson’s disease, movement vigor, and implicit motivation. J. Neurosci. 27, 7105–7116 (2007).
Panigrahi, B. et al. Dopamine is required for the neural representation and control of movement vigor. Cell 162, 1418–1430 (2015).
Dudman, J. T. & Krakauer, J. W. The basal ganglia: from motor commands to the control of vigor. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 37, 158–166 (2016).
Yttri, E. A. & Dudman, J. T. A proposed circuit computation in basal ganglia: history-dependent gain. Mov. Disord. 33, 704–716 (2018).
Whishaw, I. Q., Zeeb, F., Erickson, C. & McDonald, R. J. Neurotoxic lesions of the caudate-putamen on a reaching for food task in the rat: acute sensorimotor neglect and chronic qualitative motor impairment follow lateral lesions and improved success follows medial lesions. Neuroscience 146, 86–97 (2007).
Yu, B. M. et al. Gaussian-process factor analysis for low-dimensional single-trial analysis of neural population activity. J. Neurophysiol. 102, 614–635 (2009).
Peters, A. J., Liu, H. & Komiyama, T. Learning in the rodent motor cortex. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 40, 77–97 (2017).
Alaverdashvili, M. & Whishaw, I. Q. Motor cortex stroke impairs individual digit movement in skilled reaching by the rat. Eur. J. Neurosci. 28, 311–322 (2008).
Guo, J. Z. et al. Cortex commands the performance of skilled movement. eLife 4, e10774 (2015).
Lemon, R. N. Descending pathways in motor control. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 31, 195–218 (2008).
Miri, A. et al. Behaviorally selective engagement of short-latency effector pathways by motor cortex. Neuron 95, 683–696.e11 (2017).
Ueno, M. et al. Corticospinal circuits from the sensory and motor cortices differentially regulate skilled movements through distinct spinal interneurons. Cell Rep. 23, 1286–1300.e7 (2018).
Lawrence, D. G. & Kuypers, H. G. The functional organization of the motor system in the monkey. I. The effects of bilateral pyramidal lesions. Brain 91, 1–14 (1968).
Lawrence, D. G. & Kuypers, H. G. The functional organization of the motor system in the monkey. II. The effects of lesions of the descending brain-stem pathways. Brain 91, 15–36 (1968).
Otchy, T. M. et al. Acute off-target effects of neural circuit manipulations. Nature 528, 358–363 (2015).
Díaz-Hernández, E. et al. The thalamostriatal projections contribute to the initiation and execution of a sequence of movements. Neuron 100, 739–752.e5 (2018).
Murray, J. M. & Escola, G. S. Learning multiple variable-speed sequences in striatum via cortical tutoring. eLife 6, e26084 (2017).
Dudman, J. T. & Gerfen, C. R. in The Rat Nervous System (ed. Paxinos, G.) Ch. 17, 391–440 (Academic Press, 2015).
Oldenburg, I. A. & Sabatini, B. L. Antagonistic but not symmetric regulation of primary motor cortex by basal ganglia direct and indirect pathways. Neuron 86, 1174–1181 (2015).
Koralek, A. C., Jin, X., Long, J. D. II, Costa, R. M. & Carmena, J. M. Corticostriatal plasticity is necessary for learning intentional neuroprosthetic skills. Nature 483, 331–335 (2012).
DeLong, M. R., Crutcher, M. D. & Georgopoulos, A. P. Primate globus pallidus and subthalamic nucleus: functional organization. J. Neurophysiol. 53, 530–543 (1985).
Baker, K. B. et al. Somatotopic organization in the internal segment of the globus pallidus in Parkinson’s disease. Exp. Neurol. 222, 219–225 (2010).
Shmuelof, L., Krakauer, J. W. & Mazzoni, P. How is a motor skill learned? Change and invariance at the levels of task success and trajectory control. J. Neurophysiol. 108, 578–594 (2012).
Hikosaka, O., Yamamoto, S., Yasuda, M. & Kim, H. F. Why skill matters. Trends Cogn. Sci. 17, 434–441 (2013).
Park, S.-W., Marino, H., Charles, S. K., Sternad, D. & Hogan, N. Moving slowly is hard for humans: limitations of dynamic primitives. J. Neurophysiol. 118, 69–83 (2017).
Harris, A. Z. & Gordon, J. A. Long-range neural synchrony in behavior. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 38, 171–194 (2015).
Fries, P. A mechanism for cognitive dynamics: neuronal communication through neuronal coherence. Trends Cogn. Sci. 9, 474–480 (2005).
Fries, P. Rhythms for cognition: communication through coherence. Neuron 88, 220–235 (2015).
Ramanathan, D. S. et al. Low-frequency cortical activity is a neuromodulatory target that tracks recovery after stroke. Nat. Med. 24, 1257–1267 (2018).
Churchland, M. M. et al. Neural population dynamics during reaching. Nature 487, 51–56 (2012).
Sussillo, D., Churchland, M. M., Kaufman, M. T. & Shenoy, K. V. A neural network that finds a naturalistic solution for the production of muscle activity. Nat. Neurosci. 18, 1025–1033 (2015).
Delorme, A. & Makeig, S. EEGLAB: an open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis. J. Neurosci. Methods 134, 9–21 (2004).
Bokil, H., Andrews, P., Kulkarni, J. E., Mehta, S. & Mitra, P. P. Chronux: a platform for analyzing neural signals. J. Neurosci. Methods 192, 146–151 (2010).
Cowley, B. R. et al. DataHigh: graphical user interface for visualizing and interacting with high-dimensional neural activity. J. Neural Eng. 10, 066012 (2013).
Aarts, E., Verhage, M., Veenvliet, J. V., Dolan, C. V. & van der Sluis, S. A solution to dependency: using multilevel analysis to accommodate nested data. Nat. Neurosci. 17, 491–496 (2014).
Acknowledgements
Research was supported by the Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration (VA Merit no. 1I01RX001640 to K.G.; Career Development Award no. 7IK2BX003308 to D.S.R.), the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (grant nos. 5K02NS093014 and R01MH111871 to K.G.), the American Heart & Stroke Association (predoctoral fellowship no. 17PRE33410530/2016 to S.M.L.), A*STAR Singapore (fellowship to L.G.) and a Career Award for Medical Scientists from the Burroughs Wellcome Fund to D.S.R. (no. 1015644). and to K.G. (no 1009855).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
S.M.L., D.S.R. and K.G. designed the experiments. S.M.L. and D.S.R. carried out the electrophysiology experiments. S.M.L. carried out the acute inactivation experiments. S.M.L. and L.G. carried out the chronic lesion experiments. S.M.L. and S.J.W. performed the histology. S.M.L. carried out the analyses. S.M.L. and K.G. wrote the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Journal peer review information: Nature Neuroscience thanks Xin Jin, David Robbe, and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Integrated supplementary information
Supplementary Fig. 1 Localization of electrodes.
a. Illustration of M1 and DLS recording sites. b. Quantification of electrolytic lesion sites marking electrode locations for four learning animals.
Supplementary Fig. 2 Corticostriatal projections.
a. Anterograde labeling of projections from M1 showing projections to the DLS. Representative image from four tracing experiments (n = 4 animals). b. Retrograde labeling of projections to the DLS showing strong inputs from cortex, including M1. Representative image from four tracing experiments (n = 4 animals).
Supplementary Fig. 3 Gross movement metrics and success rate do not covary on days five through eight of reach-to-grasp skill learning.
a. Scatterplots of mean movement duration, sub-movement timing variability and success rate for non-overlapping ten trial bins between days five and eight of training across animals (n = 123 bins across 4 animals; values are z-scored within each animal; Pearson’s r).
Supplementary Fig. 4 M1 and DLS LFP channel pairs with high coherence have non-zero phase lag.
a. Example mean movement onset-locked LFP signals from M1 and DLS (top) and extracted phase (bottom). b. Histogram of phase difference between M1 and DLS LFP signals from 250ms before movement onset to 500ms after movement onset for example M1-DLS LFP pair (grey shaded region in a). c. Peak of phase difference histogram (as in b) for all high coherence (coherence value >0.2) pairs of M1-DLS channels on day eight.
Supplementary Fig. 5 LFP power and coherence increase for behaviorally-matched trials early and late in reach-to-grasp skill learning.
a. Differences in M1 3-6Hz LFP power, DLS 3-6Hz LFP power, and M1-DLS 3-6Hz LFP coherence between behaviorally-matched ‘fast’ trials with a duration between 200-400ms on days one and two (Early Days) and days seven and eight (Late Days). Grey lines represent mean values from individual animals (n = 4 animals) and black lines represent mean ± s.e.m. across animals. P values from mixed-effects models. b. Same as a for behaviorally-matched high forelimb trajectory correlation trials (individual trial trajectory with correlation value >0.9 to mean session trajectory).
Supplementary Fig. 6 Peak frequency of M1-DLS LFP coherence covaries with movement duration on day eight.
a. Example mean M1 and DLS LFP signals for slowest third of trials (top) and fastest third of trials (bottom) on day eight for example animal. b. Difference in 3-6Hz M1-DLS LFP coherence between slowest third of trials (Slow Trials) and fastest third of trials (Fast Trials; normalized to mean coherence for slowest third of trials) on day one and day eight (n = 4 animals). Grey lines represent mean values from individual animals and black lines represent mean ± s.e.m. across animals. P values from mixed-effects models. c. Difference in peak M1-DLS frequency between 3-6Hz for slowest third of trials and fastest third of trials on day one and day eight (n = 4 animals). Grey lines represent mean values from individual animals and black lines represent mean ± s.e.m. across animals. P values from mixed-effects models.
Supplementary Fig. 7 Details of M1 and DLS spiking activity.
a. Example waveforms from array spanning M1 and DLS for one session. b. Total recorded units and total task-related units across days in M1. c. Total recorded units and total task-related units across days in DLS. d. Histogram of firing rates for all units across all sessions, vertical lines denote median for each region. e. PETHs of all M1 units time-locked to movement onset on day one (left) and day eight (right). f. PETHs of all DLS units time-locked to movement onset on day one (left) and day eight (right). g. M1 unit activity during reaching. h. DLS unit activity during reaching. i. PETHs of all phase-locked and not phase-locked M1 units on day eight. j. PETHs of all phase-locked and not phase-locked DLS units on day eight.
Supplementary Fig. 8 Body posture during reaching before and after DLS inactivation.
a. Example of top camera view and quantification of body axis/posture during reaching. b. Example body posture for all trials at the time of movement onset before DLS muscimol infusion (Baseline Session) and after DLS muscimol infusion (DLS Inactivation Session). Grey lines represent individual trials and red line represents mean position across session. c. Difference in posture variability and lateral bias for trials before DLS muscimol infusion and after DLS muscimol infusion (n = 3 sessions across 3 animals). Grey lines represent mean values from individual animals and black lines represent mean ± s.e.m. across animals. P values from mixed-effects models.
Supplementary Fig. 9 Localization and behavioral effects of excitotoxic DLS lesions.
a. DLS excitotoxic lesion localization (immunolabeling: DAPI in blue; NeuN in red). b. Differences in reach duration, sub-movement timing variability, and success rate between trials before DLS lesion (Pre Lesion) and trials two weeks after DLS excitotoxic lesion (Post Lesion). Grey lines represent mean values from individual animals (n = 3 animals) and black lines represent mean ± s.e.m. across animals. P values from mixed-effects models.
Supplementary Fig. 10 Localization of muscimol infusion.
a. Localization of muscimol infusion into DLS. Representative image from three localizations (n = 3 animals).
Supplementary Fig. 11 Localization of M1 photothrombotic lesion.
a. Example M1 photothrombotic lesion. Representative image from five localizations (n = 5 animals).
Supplementary Fig. 12 Increased GPFA neural trajectory consistency during reach-to-grasp skill learning.
a. GPFA neural trajectories for M1 (top) and DLS (bottom) on day one and day eight from example animal. b. Difference in consistency of GPFA trajectories between early days (days 1–4) and late days (days 5–8) in M1 (top) and DLS (bottom). Grey dots represent individual sessions (Early Days: n = 12 sessions across 4 animals; Late Days: n = 10 sessions across 4 animals) and black lines represent mean ± s.e.m. across sessions.
Supplementary information
Supplementary Video 1
Video of fine movements involved in grasping the pellet during trials before DLS lesion and 2 weeks post-DLS lesion.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lemke, S.M., Ramanathan, D.S., Guo, L. et al. Emergent modular neural control drives coordinated motor actions. Nat Neurosci 22, 1122–1131 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-019-0407-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-019-0407-2
This article is cited by
-
Task-specific modulation of corticospinal neuron activity during motor learning in mice
Nature Communications (2023)
-
Emergence of task-related spatiotemporal population dynamics in transplanted neurons
Nature Communications (2023)
-
Cortical–hippocampal coupling during manifold exploration in motor cortex
Nature (2023)
-
Frontal cortex activity during the production of diverse social communication calls in marmoset monkeys
Nature Communications (2023)
-
Networking brainstem and basal ganglia circuits for movement
Nature Reviews Neuroscience (2022)