Role of the Mirror-Neuron System in Cross-Education

被引:0
作者
Tjerk Zult
Glyn Howatson
Endre E. Kádár
Jonathan P. Farthing
Tibor Hortobágyi
机构
[1] University Medical Center Groningen,Center for Human Movement Sciences
[2] University of Groningen,Faculty of Health and Life Sciences
[3] Northumbria University,Water Research Group, School of Biological Sciences
[4] North West University,Department of Psychology
[5] University of Portsmouth,College of Kinesiology
[6] University of Saskatchewan,undefined
来源
Sports Medicine | 2014年 / 44卷
关键词
Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation; Maximal Voluntary Contraction; Strength Training; Supplementary Motor Area; Superior Temporal Sulcus;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
The present review proposes the untested hypothesis that cross-education performed with a mirror increases the transfer of motor function to the resting limb compared with standard cross-education interventions without a mirror. The hypothesis is based on neuroanatomical evidence suggesting an overlap in activated brain areas when a unilateral motor task is performed with and without a mirror in the context of cross-education of the upper extremities. The review shows that the mirror-neuron system (MNS), connecting sensory neurons responding to visual properties of an observed action and motor neurons that discharge action potentials during the execution of a similar action, has the potential to enhance cross-education. After a literature search we narrowed the review to studies that examined healthy young adults who performed unilateral strength training and unilateral motor tasks with or without a mirror and assessed outcome measures in relation to the changes in brain activity, motor cortical excitability, and corticospinal excitability. We identified six chronic studies that examined the effects of unilateral strength training on neural adaptations and 15 cross-sectional studies that examined acute changes in brain activation, motor cortical and corticospinal excitability using imaging, electroencephalographic, magnetoencephalographic, and magnetic brain stimulation. There were two chronic and nine cross-sectional studies in which participants performed unilateral motor tasks while viewing the image of the active hand superimposed on the resting hand’s image. Collectively, the data suggest that the MNS is involved in cross-education and the hypothesis is tenable. However, future studies are needed to elucidate the precise mechanism of how the use of a mirror in a cross-education study augments transfer to the non-exercised limb. Recent studies show a strength-sparing effect in the immobilized arm after strength training of the free arm in healthy individuals, and improved bilateral function after unilateral exercise therapy in stroke patients. It is thus conceptually justified to conduct randomized clinical trials that supplement cross-education protocols with a mirror. Such a treatment could reduce muscle weakness caused by limb fractures, anterior-cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery, stroke, and other unilateral motor dysfunctions.
引用
收藏
页码:159 / 178
页数:19
相关论文
共 349 条
  • [21] Iacoboni M(1996)Action recognition in the premotor cortex Brain 119 593-376
  • [22] Koski LM(1996)Premotor cortex and the recognition of motor actions Brain Res Cogn Brain Res 3 131-192
  • [23] Brass M(2004)The mirror neuron system and action recognition Brain Lang 89 370-560
  • [24] Bekkering H(2004)The mirror-neuron system Annu Rev Neurosci 27 169-310
  • [25] Woods RP(2009)The mirror neuron system Arch Neurol 66 557-S109
  • [26] Dubeau MC(2012)The mirror neuron system and treatment of stroke Dev Psychobiol 54 293-1167
  • [27] Hortobágyi T(2001)Neural simulation of action: a unifying mechanism for motor cognition Neuroimage 14 S103-222
  • [28] Zhou S(2010)ALE meta-analysis of action observation and imitation in the human brain Neuroimage 50 1148-349
  • [29] Munn J(2002)Does visual perception of object afford action? Evidence from a neuroimaging study Neuropsychologia 40 212-326
  • [30] Herbert RD(2012)Brain regions with mirror properties: a meta-analysis of 125 human fMRI studies Neurosci Biobehav Rev 36 341-126