Cited by 693Motor Control and AdaptationTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery

Motor learning elicited by voluntary drive

Lotze, M.·2003·Brain

Abstract

Motor training consisting of voluntary movements leads to performance improvements and results in characteristic reorganizational changes in the motor cortex. It has been proposed that repetition of passively elicited movements could also lead to improvements in motor performance. In this study, we compared behavioural gains, changes in functional MRI (fMRI) activation in the contralateral primary motor cortex (cM1) and in motor cortex excitability measured with transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) after a 30 min training period of either voluntarily (active) or passively (passive) induced wrist movements, when alertness and kinematic aspects of training were controlled. During active training, subjects were instructed to perform voluntary wrist flexion-extension movements of a specified duration (target window 174-186 ms) in an articulated splint. Passive training consisted of wrist flexion- extension movements elicited by a torque motor, of the same amplitude and duration range as in the active task. fMRI activation and TMS parameters of motor cortex excitability were measured before and after each training type. Motor performance, measured as the number of movements that hit the target window duration, was significantly better after active than after passive training. Both active and passive movements performed during fMRI measurements activated cM1. Active training led to more prominent increases in (i) fMRI activation of cM1; (ii) recruitment curves (TMS); and (iii) intracortical facilitation (TMS) than passive training. Therefore, a short period of active motor training is more effective than passive motor training in eliciting performance improvements and cortical reorganization. This result is consistent with the concept of a pivotal role for voluntary drive in motor learning and neurorehabilitation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/brain/awg079

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lotze, M.
Affiliations
University of Tübingen (DE)
Corresponding author
Lotze, M.
Venue
Brain
Published
2003-04-01
Volume
126
Issue
4
Pages
866-872
ISSN
  • 0006-8950 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2156
OpenAlex
W2138983889
Cited by
691
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 49 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 37 · 2019: 44 · 2018: 47 · 2017: 37 · 2016: 39 · 2015: 38 · 2014: 42 · 2013: 28 · 2012: 32
FWCI
7.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Brain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Iris (University of Trento) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Keywords
motor learning, primary motor cortex, motor cortex excitability, cortical reorganization, wrist flexion and extension, intracortical facilitation, neurorehabilitation, motor performance improvement
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Humans, Learning, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Motivation, Motor Cortex, Motor Skills, Movement, Wrist, Torque

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review