Characterization of kinesthetic motor imagery compared with visual motor imageries

Yu Jin Yang, Eun Jeong Jeon, June Sic Kim, Chun Kee Chung, Yu Jin Yang, Eun Jeong Jeon, June Sic Kim, Chun Kee Chung

Abstract

Motor imagery (MI) is the only way for disabled subjects to robustly use a robot arm with a brain-machine interface. There are two main types of MI. Kinesthetic motor imagery (KMI) is proprioceptive (OR somato-) sensory imagination and Visual motor imagery (VMI) represents a visualization of the corresponding movement incorporating the visual network. Because these imagery tactics may use different networks, we hypothesized that the connectivity measures could characterize the two imageries better than the local activity. Electroencephalography data were recorded. Subjects performed different conditions, including motor execution (ME), KMI, VMI, and visual observation (VO). We tried to classify the KMI and VMI by conventional power analysis and by the connectivity measures. The mean accuracies of the classification of the KMI and VMI were 98.5% and 99.29% by connectivity measures (alpha and beta, respectively), which were higher than those by the normalized power (p < 0.01, Wilcoxon paired rank test). Additionally, the connectivity patterns were correlated between the ME-KMI and between the VO-VMI. The degree centrality (DC) was significantly higher in the left-S1 at the alpha-band in the KMI than in the VMI. The MI could be well classified because the KMI recruits a similar network to the ME. These findings could contribute to MI training methods.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The graphic illustration of task paradigms. (a) The overall task paradigms of single trials as execution (ME, VO) and imagery (KMI, VMI) conditions. (b) The session design, which showed a moving robot arm when execution conditions and only target without a robot arm when imagery conditions.
Figure 2
Figure 2
A schematic diagram of a brain network classification using mutual information. (a) A schematic procedure illustrating the overall workflows. (b) Raw EEG signal. (c) ROI location and source analysis. (d) Signal preprocessing (e.g., band-pass filtering and epoching). (e) Calculate mutual information at each frequency band. (f) Feature selection with a threshold of 0.2. (g) Classification of the KMI and VMI using SVM.
Figure 3
Figure 3
An example of the features for classifying the KMI and VMI. (a) The Grand averaged power spectra of the four conditions. Each line indicates the normalized power for each condition grand averaged across all subjects and ROIs. For the further classification of KMI and VMI, we used the single trial-normalized power for the features (a.u arbitrary unit). (b) Grand averaged Highest 20% connections (as SVM features) at each frequency bands for each condition. The edges represent the functional connectivity calculated by the mutual information, and the thickness of the edge indicates the strength of the connectivity. The nodes represent the locations of the ROIs, and the different sizes of the node express the DC, that is, how many links are connected to that node.
Figure 4
Figure 4
The average classification accuracy. (a) The individual classification accuracy of eleven subjects by the measure of connectivity and power. Dashed black line indicates the chance level (50%). (b) The averaged classification accuracy in the features of connectivity and power at the alpha and beta frequency bands. The average accuracy of each feature: connectivity-alpha (98.52 ± 1.57), connectivity-beta (99.28 ± 1.04), power-alpha (54.95 ± 10.11) and power-beta (55.10 ± 9.72).
Figure 5
Figure 5
Node degree centrality (NDC) of each condition at the alpha and beta frequency. The NDC was calculated from the grand averaged edges with a threshold of 0.2. The NDC of each condition corresponds to the size of the nodes in Fig. 3b. l left, r right.
Figure 6
Figure 6
The significant difference in the NDC of the KMI and VMI at each frequency band. At the alpha frequency, the KMI was significantly higher than the VMI at the left S1. On the other hand, the right PM was higher than the KMI. p-value was calculated with the non-parametric permutation test. ***p 

References

    1. Lebedev MA, Nicolelis MA. Brain-machine interfaces: Past, present and future. Trends Neurosci. 2006;29:536–546. doi: 10.1016/j.tins.2006.07.004.
    1. Wolpaw JR, Wolpaw EW. Brain–Computer Interfaces: Principles and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2012.
    1. Donoghue JP. Connecting cortex to machines: Recent advances in brain interfaces. Nat. Neurosci. 2002;5(Suppl):1085–1088. doi: 10.1038/nn947.
    1. Jeannerod M. Mental imagery in the motor context. Neuropsychologia. 1995;33:1419–1432. doi: 10.1016/0028-3932(95)00073-C.
    1. Pfurtscheller G, Lopes da Silva FH. Event-related EEG/MEG synchronization and desynchronization: Basic principles. Clin. Neurophysiol. 1999;110:1842–1857. doi: 10.1016/S1388-2457(99)00141-8.
    1. Ishai A, Ungerleider LG, Haxby JV. Distributed neural systems for the generation of visual images. Neuron. 2000;28:979–990. doi: 10.1016/s0896-6273(00)00168-9.
    1. Vidaurre C, Blankertz B. Towards a cure for BCI illiteracy. Brain Topogr. 2010;23:194–198. doi: 10.1007/s10548-009-0121-6.
    1. Jeunet C, Jahanpour E, Lotte F. Why standard brain-computer interface (BCI) training protocols should be changed: An experimental study. J. Neural Eng. 2016;13:036024. doi: 10.1088/1741-2560/13/3/036024.
    1. Lacourse MG, Orr EL, Cramer SC, Cohen MJ. Brain activation during execution and motor imagery of novel and skilled sequential hand movements. Neuroimage. 2005;27:505–519. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.04.025.
    1. Graimann B, Allison B, Pfurtscheller G. Brain–Computer Interfaces: Revolutionizing Human–Computer Interaction. New York: Springer; 2010. pp. 47–64.
    1. Vukelic M, Gharabaghi A. Oscillatory entrainment of the motor cortical network during motor imagery is modulated by the feedback modality. Neuroimage. 2015;111:1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.01.058.
    1. Jeunet, C., Vi, C., Spelmezan, D., N'Kaoua, B., Lotte, F. & Subramanian, S. Continuous Tactile Feedback for Motor-Imagery Based Brain–Computer Interaction in a Multitasking Context (2015).
    1. Ono T, Kimura A, Ushiba J. Daily training with realistic visual feedback improves reproducibility of event-related desynchronisation following hand motor imagery. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2013;124:1779–1786. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2013.03.006.
    1. Neuper C, Scherer R, Reiner M, Pfurtscheller G. Imagery of motor actions: Differential effects of kinesthetic and visual-motor mode of imagery in single-trial EEG. Brain Res. Cogn. Brain Res. 2005;25:668–677. doi: 10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2005.08.014.
    1. Thomschewski A, et al. Imagine there is no plegia. Mental motor imagery difficulties in patients with traumatic spinal cord injury. Front. Neurosci.-Switz. 2017;11:689. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2017.00689.
    1. Guillot A, et al. Brain activity during visual versus kinesthetic imagery: An fMRI study. Hum. Brain Mapp. 2009;30:2157–2172. doi: 10.1002/hbm.20658.
    1. Ganzetti M, Mantini D. Functional connectivity and oscillatory neuronal activity in the resting human brain. Neuroscience. 2013;240:297–309. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2013.02.032.
    1. Xu L, et al. Motor execution and motor imagery: A comparison of functional connectivity patterns based on graph theory. Neuroscience. 2014;261:184–194. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2013.12.005.
    1. Kim YK, Park E, Lee A, Im CH, Kim YH. Changes in network connectivity during motor imagery and execution. PLoS ONE. 2018;13:e0190715. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0190715.
    1. Kang BK, Kim JS, Ryun S, Chung CK. Prediction of movement intention using connectivity within motor-related network: An electrocorticography study. PLoS ONE. 2018;13:e0191480. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0191480.
    1. Rehme AK, Eickhoff SB, Grefkes C. State-dependent differences between functional and effective connectivity of the human cortical motor system. Neuroimage. 2013;67:237–246. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.11.027.
    1. Hampson M, Driesen NR, Skudlarski P, Gore JC, Constable RT. Brain connectivity related to working memory performance. J. Neurosci. 2006;26:13338–13343. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3408-06.2006.
    1. Stam CJ, et al. The relation between structural and functional connectivity patterns in complex brain networks. Int. J. Psychophysiol. 2016;103:149–160. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2015.02.011.
    1. van den Heuvel MP, Hulshoff Pol HE. Exploring the brain network: A review on resting-state fMRI functional connectivity. Eur. Neuropsychopharmacol. 2010;20:519–534. doi: 10.1016/j.euroneuro.2010.03.008.
    1. Lynall ME, et al. Functional connectivity and brain networks in schizophrenia. J. Neurosci. 2010;30:9477–9487. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0333-10.2010.
    1. Oldfield RC. The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh Inventory. Neuropsychologia. 1971;9:97–113. doi: 10.1016/0028-3932(71)90067-4.
    1. Malouin F, et al. The Kinesthetic and Visual Imagery Questionnaire (KVIQ) for assessing motor imagery in persons with physical disabilities: A reliability and construct validity study. J. Neurol. Phys. Ther. 2007;31:20–29. doi: 10.1097/01.npt.0000260567.24122.64.
    1. Papaxanthis C, Pozzo T, Skoura X, Schieppati M. Does order and timing in performance of imagined and actual movements affect the motor imagery process? The duration of walking and writing task. Behav. Brain Res. 2002;134:209–215. doi: 10.1016/S0166-4328(02)00030-X.
    1. Jeannerod M. Neural simulation of action: A unifying mechanism for motor cognition. Neuroimage. 2001;14:S103–S109. doi: 10.1006/nimg.2001.0832.
    1. Neuper C, Scherer R, Wriessnegger S, Pfurtscheller G. Motor imagery and action observation: Modulation of sensorimotor brain rhythms during mental control of a brain–computer interface. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2009;120:239–247. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2008.11.015.
    1. Nicolelis MA, Lebedev MA. Principles of neural ensemble physiology underlying the operation of brain-machine interfaces. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2009;10:530–540. doi: 10.1038/nrn2653.
    1. Abbruzzese G, Avanzino L, Marchese R, Pelosin E. Action observation and motor imagery: Innovative cognitive tools in the rehabilitation of Parkinson's disease. Parkinsons Dis. 2015;2015:124214. doi: 10.1155/2015/124214.
    1. Filgueiras A, QuintasConde EF, Hall CR. The neural basis of kinesthetic and visual imagery in sports: An ALE meta-analysis. Brain Imaging Behav. 2018;12:1513–1523. doi: 10.1007/s11682-017-9813-9.
    1. Hetu S, et al. The neural network of motor imagery: An ALE meta-analysis. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2013;37:930–949. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.03.017.
    1. Jin SH, Jeong W, Lee DS, Jeon BS, Chung CK. Preserved high-centrality hubs but efficient network reorganization during eyes-open state compared with eyes-closed resting state: An MEG study. J. Neurophysiol. 2014;111:1455–1465. doi: 10.1152/jn.00585.2013.
    1. Bertrand O, Perrin F, Pernier J. A theoretical justification of the average reference in topographic evoked potential studies. Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol. 1985;62:462–464. doi: 10.1016/0168-5597(85)90058-9.
    1. Jeong J, Gore JC, Peterson BS. Mutual information analysis of the EEG in patients with Alzheimer's disease. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2001;112:827–835. doi: 10.1016/s1388-2457(01)00513-2.
    1. Wang J, et al. GRETNA: A graph theoretical network analysis toolbox for imaging connectomics. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2015;9:386. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00386.
    1. Sun CC, et al. Mutual information-based brain network analysis in post-stroke patients with different levels of depression. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2018 doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2018.00285.
    1. Nichols TE, Holmes AP. Nonparametric permutation tests for functional neuroimaging: A primer with examples. Hum. Brain Mapp. 2002;15:1–25. doi: 10.1002/hbm.1058.
    1. Delorme A, Makeig S. EEGLAB: An open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis. J. Neurosci. Methods. 2004;134:9–21. doi: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2003.10.009.
    1. Yeom HG, Kim JS, Chung CK. Brain mechanisms in motor control during reaching movements: Transition of functional connectivity according to movement states. Sci. Rep. 2020;10:567. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-57489-7.
    1. Kosslyn SM, Ganis G, Thompson WL. Neural foundations of imagery. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2001;2:635–642. doi: 10.1038/35090055.
    1. Decety J, Jeannerod M, Prablanc C. The timing of mentally represented actions. Behav. Brain Res. 1989;34:35–42. doi: 10.1016/s0166-4328(89)80088-9.
    1. Corbet T, Iturrate I, Pereira M, Perdikis S, Millan JD. Sensory threshold neuromuscular electrical stimulation fosters motor imagery performance. Neuroimage. 2018;176:268–276. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.04.005.
    1. Mizuguchi N, et al. Influence of somatosensory input on corticospinal excitability during motor imagery. Neurosci. Lett. 2012;514:127–130. doi: 10.1016/j.neulet.2012.02.073.
    1. Cisek P, Kalaska JF. Neural correlates of mental rehearsal in dorsal premotor cortex. Nature. 2004;431:993–996. doi: 10.1038/nature03005.
    1. Gallese V, Fadiga L, Fogassi L, Rizzolatti G. Action recognition in the premotor cortex. Brain. 1996;119(Pt 2):593–609. doi: 10.1093/brain/119.2.593.
    1. Stinear CM, Byblow WD, Steyvers M, Levin O, Swinnen SP. Kinesthetic, but not visual, motor imagery modulates corticomotor excitability. Exp. Brain Res. 2006;168:157–164. doi: 10.1007/s00221-005-0078-y.
    1. Toriyama H, Ushiba J, Ushiyama J. Subjective vividness of kinesthetic motor imagery is associated with the similarity in magnitude of sensorimotor event-related desynchronization between motor execution and motor imagery. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2018;12:295. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2018.00295.
    1. Hari R, et al. Activation of human primary motor cortex during action observation: A neuromagnetic study. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 1998;95:15061–15065. doi: 10.1073/pnas.95.25.15061.
    1. O'Shea H, Moran A. Does motor simulation theory explain the cognitive mechanisms underlying motor imagery? A critical review. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2017;11:72. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00072.

Source: PubMed

3
订阅