Perturbation Predictability Can Influence the Long-Latency Stretch Response

Abstract

Perturbations applied to the upper limbs elicit short (M1: 25–50 ms) and long-latency (M2: 50–100 ms) responses in the stretched muscle. M1 is produced by a spinal reflex loop, and M2 receives contribution from multiple spinal and supra-spinal pathways. While M1 is relatively immutable to voluntary intention, the remarkable feature of M2 is that its size can change based on intention or goal of the participant (e.g., increasing when resisting the perturbation and decreasing when asked to let-go or relax following the perturbation). While many studies have examined modulation of M2 between passive and various active conditions, through the use of constant foreperiods (interval between warning signal and a perturbation), it has also been shown that the magnitude of the M2 response in a passive condition can change based on factors such as habituation and anticipation of perturbation delivery. To prevent anticipation of a perturbation, most studies have used variable foreperiods; however, the range of possible foreperiod duration differs between experiments. The present study examined the influence of different variable foreperiods on modulation of the M2 response. Fifteen participants performed active and passive responses to a perturbation that stretched wrist flexors. Each block of trials had either a short (2.5–3.5 seconds; high predictability) or long (2.5–10.5 seconds; low predictability) variable foreperiod. As expected, no differences were found between any conditions for M1, while M2 was larger in the active rather than passive conditions. Interestingly, within the two passive conditions, the long variable foreperiods resulted in greater activity at the end of the M2 response than the trials with short foreperiods. These results suggest that perturbation predictability, even when using a variable foreperiod, can influence circuitry contributing to the long-latency stretch response.