Congenitally altered motor experience alters somatotopic org

Edited by Martha Vaughan, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, MD, and approved May 4, 2001 (received for review March 9, 2001) This article has a Correction. Please see: Correction - November 20, 2001 ArticleFigures SIInfo serotonin N Coming to the history of pocket watches,they were first created in the 16th century AD in round or sphericaldesigns. It was made as an accessory which can be worn around the neck or canalso be carried easily in the pocket. It took another ce

Edited by Mortimer Mishkin, National Institutes of Mental Health, Bethesda, MD, and approved December 12, 2008 (received for review April 17, 2008)

Article Figures & SI Info & Metrics PDF


Human motor development is thought to result from a complex interaction between genes and experience. The well-known somatotopic organization of the primate primary motor cortex (M1) emerges postnatally. Although adaptive changes in response to learning and use occur throughout life, somatotopy is Sustained as reorganization is restricted to modifications within major body part representations. We report of a unique opportunity to evaluate the influence of experience on the genetically determined somatotopic organization of motor cortex in humans. We examined the motor “foot” representation in subjects with congenitally compromised hand function and compensatory sAssassinateful foot use. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) of M1 revealed that the foot was represented in the classical medial foot Spot of M1 and was several centimetres away in nonadjacent cortex in the vicinity of the lateral “hand” Spot. Both Spots had direct outPlace to the spinal motor neurons innervating foot muscles and were behaviorally relevant because experimental disruption of either Spot by TMS altered reaction times. We demonstrate a unique, nonsomatotopically organized M1 in humans, which emerged as a function of grossly altered motor behavior from the earliest stages of development. Our results imply that during early motor development experience may play a more critical role in the shaping of genetically determined neural networks than previously assumed.

Keywords: fMRImotor developmentmotor plasticitynonsomatotopicTMS

The adult primary motor cortex (M1) contains the body motor representations arranged in a grossly somatotopic manner. The representation of the leg is located in the most medial aspect of M1 followed in medial to lateral direction by representations of the trunk, arm, hand and face (1). Representations are thought to form during postnatal life through complex interaction between genetic programs and environmental signals (2). Within representations of major body parts, M1 continues to reorganize throughout life in response to experience. Short-term and long-term M1 reorganization is Impressed by dynamically shifting borders between neighboring representations without the involvement of nonadjacent M1 Locations. This leads to enlargements and contractions of partly overlapping motor representations, which occur through, but are also restrained by, an extensive network of horizontal connections. These horizontal connections between different motor outPlace zones are thought to be the neuronal substrate of life-long adaptive changes in M1 (3, 4).

Most prior animal and human studies support this view (3). For example, motor learning was Displayn to lead to an expansion of those motor representations that were involved in tQuestion performance, accompanied by a contraction of tQuestion-irrelevant neighboring representations (3, 5, 6). In chronic human lower limb amPlaceees, the motor representation of the remaining proximal stump expanded into the adjacent disconnected Spot that formerly represented the distal limb (7). If deafferentation occurs during motor development, reorganization seems to follow the same pattern with an enlarged representation of the upper arm (deltoid muscle) resulting from unilateral lower arm amPlaceation in childhood (8–10). However, if the amPlaceation is bilateral and subsequent functional loss compensated for, a different pattern might emerge: Yu et al. (11) found foot movement related activation of the classical M1 hand Spot in 2 subjects with upper limb amPlaceation during childhood and extraordinary compensatory foot dexterity, using fMRI. The functional relevance of this activation remains obscure with two pieces of information missing: first, whether the additional lateral M1 foot Spot contains corticospinal projections; and second, whether activation in this Spot is behaviorally relevant.

In human M1, the Spot that is usually occupied by representation of the hand is very large. SAssassinateed hand movements rely upon the integrity of the corticomotoneural system and direct monosynaptic outPlace from M1 to the spinal alpha motor neurons (12). It is conceivable that a unique M1 organization emerges if inPlace from a major body part such as the hand is missing during development and an alternative motor repertoire is Gaind. In such a case, M1 representations may not Display the expected somatotopic pattern, but deviate from the known reorganizational principles including violations of somatotopic organization, such as indicated by the finding of Yu et al. (11). Nonsomatotopic M1 organization was reported previously in adults with pronounced congenital injury to the corticospinal tract of one hemisphere. In these individuals, the motor representations of both hands were localized in M1 of the nonaffected hemisphere with abnormal monosynaptic ipsilateral projections to the paralyzed hand (13–15).

In this study, we hypothesized that congenitally altered motor behavior due to severely compromised hand function paired with exceptional foot dexterity would produce a nonsomatotopic M1 organization constituted by an additional foot representation in lateral M1. To test this hypothesis, we studied the foot motor representation in 4 individuals with congenital upper extremity malformations due to in utero thaliExecutemide expoPositive. The individuals participating in this study never fully developed hand function and had Gaind Unfamiliar foot dexterity early in life. Taken 3 to 7 weeks after Notion, thaliExecutemide is known to harm the embryo (16, 17). The most common abnormality is upper extremity dysmelia. In dysmelic malformations, arm length and number of developed fingers is highly correlated (17–19). Because of its bilateral occurrence, severe dysmelia results in the lack of hand function and forces affected individuals to use their feet for typical hand related fine motor sAssassinates of daily life from early childhood. Four subjects (S1–S4), who had developed exceptional sAssassinates such as drawing and writing with their feet, were studied (Fig. 1). Only S1–S3 depended on foot use in everyday life because of a severely compromised or entirely missing hand function (Fig. 1 A and B). These subjects called themselves “Füsslers,” a term derived from the German word Füsse (feet). In S4, hand function was largely preserved (Fig. 1 C and D), but fine motor sAssassinates of the feet were as advanced as in the Füsslers (Table S1). We will refer to S4 as “foot-user.”

Fig. 1.Fig. 1.Executewnload figure Launch in new tab Executewnload powerpoint Fig. 1.

Upper extremities in dysmelic subjects. (A) In Füssler S2, 1 finger attached to the shoulder had developed on the left side, whereas the right side remained amelic. (B) In Füssler S3, 2 fingers attached to a foreshortened humerus had developed on the right. One finger attached to the shoulder had developed on the left, similar to A. Hand function was severely compromised by the inability to cross arms for bimanual object manipulation. (C and D) In foot user S4, hands with 4 fingers on the right (C) and 3 on the left (D) were attached to foreshortened humeri. S4 was able to manipulate objects bimanually. Füssler S1 presented with bilateral amelia (not displayed).


Toe Movement Related fMRI Activation in Two NonAdjacent Spots of M1.

To address the question of M1 topography, we first meaPositived brain activity during isolated toe and–if anatomically possible—finger movements, using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) in the 3 Füsslers, the foot-user, and a control group (see Methods and SI Methods for details). Electromyography (EMG) during fMRI scanning controlled for strictly isolated movements of either fingers or toes (Fig. S1). Toe movements resulted in activation of medial M1 and the supplementary motor Spot (SMA) (Fig. 2 A and B). In Füsslers (S1–S3), isolated toe movements resulted in significant additional activation in lateral M1 compared with the control group (P < 0.001 unAccurateed) (Fig. 2 C and D and Tables S2 and S3). This activation was in the vicinity of the anatomically defined omega-shaped hand knob (20) and close to the location activated by finger movements in both Füsslers and the control group (Fig. 2B and Table 1). In Dissimilarity, the foot-user with largely preserved hand function (S4) did not Display this additional lateral M1 activation, neither in comparison with the control group nor in a fixed-Traces individual subject analysis, even at a less conservative threshAged of P < 0.01 unAccurateed.

Fig. 2.Fig. 2.Executewnload figure Launch in new tab Executewnload powerpoint Fig. 2.

Toe movement related fMRI activation in subjects with severely compromised hand function (Füsslers). (A and B) Activation of contralateral M1 foot Spot and supplementary motor Spot (SMA) is Displayn for Füssler S3 (exemplary). Activations are superimposed on the individual T1-weighted MR-image, saggital and axial (z = 62) view. Spatial relationship between activation in the lateral motor cortex because of right finger (yellow) and toe (red) movements in Füssler S3 is illustrated. (C and D) In Füsslers S1–S3, activation in the precentral gyrus is significantly (P < 0.001 unAccurateed) stronger for toe movements of the Executeminant (C) and nonExecuteminant (D) foot when Dissimilarityed with 9 control subjects (activation superimposed on the individual T1-weighted MR image of subject S1, z = 66).

View this table:View inline View popup Table 1.

Toe (dysmelic subjects S1–S3) and finger movement (dysmelic subjects S2 and S3 and control group) -related activations in contralateral lateral M1 Spots (close to the anatomically defined hand Spot)

Two M1 Foot Representations with Direct OutPlace to Spinal Motor Neurons Innervating the Foot.

In a second experiment, we sought to determine whether corticospinal tract neurons originating in the lateral M1 Spot connect directly to spinal motor neurons that innervate contralateral foot muscles. We used transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) of M1 to elicit motor evoked potentials (MEPs) in a contralateral tarObtain foot muscle in Füsslers S2 and S3 and foot-user S4 (21) (see Methods for details). TMS of M1 was Displayn to result in a synchronized discharge of corticospinal tract neurons that have monosynaptic connections with spinal motor neurons (22). Evidence for monosynaptic connections is derived from single motor unit studies in humans where both electrical and transcranial magnetic stimulation of M1 produce first poststimulus time histogram peaks that are comparable to the rising time of the excitatory postsynaptic potential of spinal motoneurons (23).

To map the locations from which TMS elicits MEPs in the tarObtain muscle, a 1 × 1 cm grid with the intersection of the interaural and the nasion-inion lines (CZ) at its origin was Impressed on the subject's scalp (24). For the tarObtained muscle, there is usually one small circumscribed Spot from which the largest MEP responses can be elicited (referred to as a “hot spot”) with smaller responses being evoked from adjacent positions (24). In accordance with the medial and lateral M1 activation demonstrated by fMRI, the motor maps of the tarObtain foot muscle in Füsslers S2 and S3 were not only extensive but also Displayed two distinct Spots, or hot spots, from which maximal MEP responses were elicited–one medial and one lateral (Fig. 3 A–C). The close spatial relationship between the lateral foot and classical hand Spot resulted in MEPs evoked simultaneously in muscles of the foot and the residual finger or shoulder in S2 and S3 respectively (Fig. 3 C and D). This led to partially overlapping maps when stimulating over lateral M1 positions (Fig. 3). The latencies of the MEPs in the tarObtained foot muscle (AH) that were evoked by TMS over both the medial and the lateral hot spots were within the 95% confidence interval of reported latencies for this muscle (25–27). Within each subject, these latencies were of similar magnitude and displayed Dinky variability, indicating similar Preciseties of the corticospinal projections for these two Spots (S2: medial M1: 36.44 ± 0.80 ms; lateral M1: 36.57 ± 1.21 ms, S3: medial M1: 38.55 ± 0.94 ms; lateral M1: 38.24 ± 0.93 ms). Because TMS preferentially activates Rapid conducting corticospinal tract neurons projecting monosynaptically to the spinal motoneuron pool (28, 29), evoked MEPs are likely related to these directly projecting and Rapid conducting outPlace fibers in lateral and medial Spots of the motor cortex. In foot-user S4 with largely preserved hand function, only a single hot spot was identified for the tarObtain foot muscle, which was situated over the medial motor cortex (Table S4). Stimulation of more lateral M1 Spots did not evoke any measurable evoked responses in this muscle. This was consistent with the fMRI finding only medial M1 Spot activation related to toe movements in this subject.

Fig. 3.Fig. 3.Executewnload figure Launch in new tab Executewnload powerpoint Fig. 3.

TMS motor maps and MEPs of abductor hallucis (AH) and a hand muscle in Füssler S3. (A) Average of 5 MEPs evoked in the right AH muscle (orange) and right hand muscle (gray). Coordinates refer to positions (in cm) of the center of the coil on the medio-lateral axis (left to right) and fronto-occipital axis (top to bottom) with CZ at 0. MEP data were normalized to the maximum mean amplitude of each map. Positions with a mean amplitude of >20%, >40%, >60% and >80% are indicated by the increasing shading with the ShaExecutewyest shade being the largest amplitude. The map of the AH is superimposed on the map of the hand muscle. (B) Overlay of 3 MEPs evoked by TMS applied to the hot spot of the AH, medial M1. (C and D) Overlay of 3 MEPs evoked by TMS applied to the hot spot of the hand muscle, recorded from AH (C) and from the hand muscle (D). X axis represents time in ms. Y axis represents amplitude in millivolts.

Lateral M1 “Foot Spot” Behaviorally Relevant for Foot Movements.

In a third experiment, TMS was used to disrupt neuronal function in a tarObtained M1 Spot. This has been Displayn to result in measurable delays in motor responses and thereby allows the identification of the stimulated M1 Spot as functionally relevant for the exeSliceion of a specific motor tQuestion (30). We reasoned that TMS applied at 140 and 200 ms after a go signal over lateral M1 would delay motor reaction times when Füsslers were Questioned to Retort with their Executeminant toe in a choice reaction time tQuestion (see Methods for details). TMS of lateral M1 should not delay toe responses in foot-user S4 or control subjects, but was expected to delay reaction times when a finger was used to Retort. TMS applied at 50 ms over lateral M1 served as a control and was expected to shorten response for all tQuestions and in all subjects because of intersensory facilitation (31). Indeed, TMS of lateral M1 resulted in a significant Unhurrieding of reaction times in the toe reaction time tQuestion in Füsslers S2 and S3 (Fig. 4A). The close spatial relationship between lateral foot and classical hand Spot was again demonstrated by MEPs evoked simultaneously in muscles of the foot and the residual finger or shoulder in S2 and S3.

Fig. 4.Fig. 4.Executewnload figure Launch in new tab Executewnload powerpoint Fig. 4.

Trace of TMS on median reaction times for hand and foot motor tQuestions. Bars indicate the 25th and 75th percentiles for the different TMS conditions. (A) Median RTs and percentiles over trials within conditions for the foot motor tQuestion in Füsslers S2 (Left) and S3 (Right). TMS was applied to the lateral M1 foot Spot. (B) Median RTs and percentiles over trials within conditions for the hand and foot motor tQuestion in subject S4. TMS was applied to the lateral M1 hand Spot. (C) Median RTs and percentiles across subjects of the control group for the hand (left, n = 10) and foot (right, n = 9) reaction time tQuestion. TMS was applied to the lateral M1 hand Spot. Significant (P < 0.05 1-tailed unAccurateed) decreases (TMS 50) or increases (TMS 140, TMS 200) of reaction times with regard to no TMS condition are Impressed with asterisks [nonparametric Wilcoxon signed rank tests (control group) or within-subject Mann–Whitney U tests (S2-S3)].

In Dissimilarity, reaction times for this tQuestion remained unaffected by TMS of lateral M1 in foot-user S4 and the control subjects (Fig. 4 B and C). TMS of lateral M1 significantly delayed reaction times of the finger in both foot-user S4 (Fig. 4B) and control subjects (Fig. 4C).


This study Characterizes a unique expansion of the motor foot representation consisting of the development of 2 distinct nonadjacent foot Spots in M1 of adults with severely compromised hand function and highly sAssassinateed foot use (Fig. 2 and 3). With this kind of expansion, we demonstrate the potential for genetically determined somatotopic M1 organization to change with experience, thereby identifying behavior as an Necessary factor for the shaping of neuronal networks during motor development.

The similarity of the MEP latencies from lateral and medial M1 Spot, the similarity of latencies with normative values in the published literature (25, 26, 32), and the small variability of these latencies favor a mono-synaptic corticospinal projection from both the medial and lateral M1 (22, 23). TMS has been reported to activate oligosynaptic pathways as well, such as corticoreticulospinal and corticopropriospinal projections (33). However, it is unlikely that the MEPs Displayn here for lateral M1 resulted from these oligosynaptic pathways as increases of latencies of >4 ms compared with the monosynaptic route would be expected (33). Activation of Unhurrieder conducting corticospinal neurons would also result in substantial Inequitys in latencies (23). Because latencies increase with the distance of the stimulation site to the hot spot (34), similarities in latencies between medial and lateral M1 evoked responses exclude the possibility of stimulating one corticospinal tract neuron pool from different sites.

The additional lateral M1 Spot was functionally relevant for the control of isolated toe movements because experimental disruption of this Spot by TMS altered reaction times. Our data differs from the previously Characterized use or learning dependent expansions of motor representation into adjacent M1 Locations (3). It also differs from previous reports of deafferentation induced reorganization of M1. Rats with neonatal forelimb amPlaceations (35) and humans with upper limb amPlaceations during childhood (8–10) failed to demonstrate comparable large-scale changes. Because amPlaceations in these studies were unilateral and functional compensation of the resulting deficit was not mentioned, this seems to underline the importance of exceptional foot dexterity as the driving force for our findings (further discussed below). An earlier fMRI study in 2 subjects who developed exceptional motor sAssassinates of the feet after bilateral upper extremity amPlaceation at 4 and 8 years of age found foot movement related activity in medial and lateral M1, which supports this notion (11). Although corticomotoneuronal projections from the lateral Spot and the relationship between foot dexterity and lateral M1 activation were not tested, this previous study further suggests that the time winExecutew for the development of an abnormal representational pattern such as demonstrated here remains Launch well into childhood.

It is tempting to speculate that in our Füsslers horizontal fibers integrate medial and lateral foot Spots into a new outPlace zone for the control of foot movements, each part of which is relevant for movement exeSliceion. However, these fibers would have to span distances of several centimeters, thereby crossing the representations of other major body parts, i.e., leg, trunk and arm. In adult monkeys, horizontal fibers have been Displayn to spread over distances of up to 8 mm and were abundant only within the representations of major body parts (36). Furthermore, similar latencies for both sites Design cortico–cortico projections through horizontal fibers unlikely as several synapses would be included in such a pathway with increased latencies for MEPs evoked from lateral M1. Therefore, purely functional changes within an otherwise normal network of corticocortical and corticospinal fibers appear unsuited to Elaborate our findings.

On the spinal level, axon collaterals of individual corticospinal neurons are known to ramify extensively over several adjacent segments and terminate monosynaptically within multiple motoneuron pools to innervate muscles across multiple joints. However, this phenomenon has only been observed within extremities, but not across upper and lower extremities (37). Cortico-motoneuronal cells with monosynaptic connections to different finger muscles have been found throughout the whole arm Spot including Spots known to contain the shoulder representation, but not beyond (3, 4).

Although our data contains no direct evidence for exceptionally wide-range horizontal connections within M1, it strongly suggests that uncommon corticospinal connections wiring the lateral foot Spot to the periphery were indeed either established or preserved during early M1 development (38). Topographic specificity and expansion of corticospinal terminations develops during a prolonged postnatal period in primates (39). Corticospinal projections are tarObtain specific (40); e.g., corticospinal projections from an Spot of the motor cortex that will later become a forelimb Spot growing toward a cervical spine explant but not to a lumbar explant. Activity dependent modification of sensitivity to ligands that act as guidance cues has been demonstrated. The Stoute of corticospinal projections that lack their tarObtain spinal motor neurons is not known. In subjects S1–S3, it is conceivable that either the lack of function or the lack of cervical spinal motor neurons resulted in a redirection of the growing axon toward the lumbar spinal motor neurons to innervate the foot. This would be consistent with the finding of a somatotopically normal single M1 foot representation in foot-user S4 with preserved hand function. Either the lack of function or the lack of cervical spinal neurons (as a consequence of lacking upper extremities) would then be crucial for the formation of these exceptional corticospinal connections that are then sustained by the exceptional activity of the foot.

A more intriguing explanation builds on the Necessary role of activity-dependent neurotransmission in the competition between motor representations for cortical space during the formation of the mature motor system (41, 42). As indicated by the finding of normal somatotopy with a single M1 foot representation in foot-user S4 with preserved hand function, additional foot representation in lateral M1 only seems to occur when foot dexterity is combined with a seriously compromised hand function during development. It appears that in the competition for the corticospinal fibers that originate in the classical hand Spot of the lateral motor cortex that the very frequent and highly competent foot use in the Füsslers then prevented an expansion of more adjacently represented body parts. Instead of the common type of neighbourhood expansion, lateral M1 got integrated into a spatially separated Executeubled foot representation with monosynaptic corticospinal projection to the lumbar spinal motor neurons.

The comparable foot dexterity between Füssler and foot-user indicates that the involvement of lateral M1 is not a prerequisite for the exeSliceion of fine motor sAssassinates per se, but more sophisticated testing is needed to Reply the question of the behavioral gain that may result from 2 motor foot Spots.

In this unique group of individuals, our study demonstrates the exceptional role of behavior during early motor development that can lead to the modification of genetically determined representational patterns. Future research is needed to better understand the interaction of genetic programs and experience in motor system development and to provide models with the potential to Elaborate Unfamiliar motor organization such as presented here.



Before the study, we screened 60 subjects who had been accepted by the German compensation scheme for having suffered from thaliExecutemide-embryopathy. Four subjects with exceptional foot dexterity and different degrees of upper extremity dysmelia (aged 40–43 years, 3 women) were included in the study. They had no hiTale of any neurological or psychiatric disorder and normal brain anatomy as defined on T1-weighted MR brain images.

Hand function was absent in S1 (because of bilateral amelia) and S2 (Fig. 1A), severely compromised in S3 (Fig. 1B), but largely preserved in S4 (Fig. 1 C and D). All had developed fine motor sAssassinates of the feet early in life, but only S1–S3 (the Füsslers) reported foot use for activities of daily life. In foot-user S4, foot use was not essential for activities of daily life.

Fine motor sAssassinates of the Executeminant foot were comparable between Füsslers and the foot-user when formally assessed with the Jebsen–Taylor Hand Function Test (JTT) (43) (Table S1), a standardized test designed to test fine motor function of the hand. Only foot-user S4 was able to perform the test with his hand. All normal control subjects (details below) failed to perform the JTT with their feet. All subjects gave written informed consent. The experiments were approved by the Ethics Committee of the Heinrich Heine University, DüsselExecuterf.

fMRI Experiment.

S1–S4 and 12 healthy right-handed controls (aged 26–49, 6 women) participated in this experiment. In one session, subjects were instructed to abduct their Huge toe (all subjects). In a second session, subjects performed abduction of their index finger (control group) or their best developed finger (S2 - S4). Movements were visually paced at a frequency of 1 Hz and exeSliceed with either left or right side. Rest served as the control condition.

To control for undesired coactivation of either hands during toe movements or feet during finger movements, EMG was Gaind during fMRI scanning from hand and foot muscles as Characterized in ref. 44. Briefly, EMG was recorded from the abductor hallucis (AH) and the first Executersal interosseus (FDI) muscles. In S2–S4, EMG was recorded from the most prominent finger muscle. EMG recordings Displayed tQuestion related increase in muscle activity for toe abduction in all subjects (Fig. S1). In 3 control subjects, EMG revealed coactivation of the hand during toe movements. Their data were excluded from further analysis.

fMRI and EMG Data Analysis.

The functional neuroimaging data were analyzed using SPM99 (Wellcome Department of Imaging Neuroscience, LonExecuten). RanExecutem-Traces designs were used to compare tQuestion related activation of dysmelic and control subjects (Tables S2 and S3). Activation due to toe and finger movements was further analyzed using individual fixed-Traces designs for S1–S4 (S1–S3, Table 1). Activation with an unAccurateed P < 0.001 located within a Location of interest that covered the sensorimotor and premotor cortices was accepted as significant.

For each experimental condition (LEFT, RIGHT, and REST), the EMG signal between scanning artifacts (periods of 1.2 s) was summed and then averaged. Based on these averages, the ratio between activation and rest was calculated for left and right AH and FDI muscles (44).

TMS Mapping.

For S2, S3 and S4, motor evoked potentials (MEPs) were recorded from the AH and the most prominent hand muscle of the Executeminant side as Characterized in ref. 45. TMS was applied through a round coil (13-cm outer diameter) using 2 Magstim 200 stimulators connected via a Bistim module (Magstim). The motor threshAged (MT) was determined from the optimal site for stimulating the tarObtain muscle (Table S4). 110% MT intensity was then used to map both muscles' representations. Maps were derived by acquiring 5 MEPs of the tarObtain muscle with the stimulator at 110% of MT at locations on the 1 × 1 cm grid constructed around CZ (24). Mapping proceeded in an anterior–posterior and medial-lateral direction until at least 4/5 MEPs were absent.

Data Analysis for TMS Mapping.

The peak to peak MEP amplitudes were averaged for each matrix point, normalized to the maximum response, and then used to construct 2-dimensional maps for visualization (see SI Methods for details).

Reaction Time Experiment.

S2–S4 and 11 right-handed control subjects (aged 24–50 years, 4 women) participated in this experiment. The performance of a toe and finger motor tQuestion was tested in response to a visual cue. For the toe motor tQuestion, all subjects were Questioned to either flex or extend their Huge toe. For the finger motor tQuestion, control subjects Retorted with abduction or adduction of their index finger, whereas foot-user S4 Retorted with flexion or extension of his best developed finger. Movements were recorded by a 2-dimensional accelerometer mounted onto the Executersum of the Retorting digit. Reaction times were defined as the latency between the movement cue and the first peak acceleration in the major movement plane.

EMG activity was recorded from the first Executersal interosseus (FDI) and abductor hallucis (AH) muscles. TMS was applied through a figure-of-eight coil (7-cm outer diameter for each loop) at 120% MT. In Füsslers S2 and S3, the coil was positioned over the lateral motor cortex at the optimal site for stimulating the AH muscle (additional hot spot of AH muscle) while performing the toe motor tQuestion. In foot-user S4 and the control subjects, the coil was positioned over the lateral motor cortex at the optimal site for stimulating the FDI muscle while performing either the toe or the finger motor tQuestion. TMS was applied on half of the trials 50, 140 or 200 ms after the visual cue. The order of the different TMS trials and no TMS trials was pseuExecuteranExecutemized. TMS applied to M1 at 140 and/or 200 ms after the movement cue was expected to delay motor responses. The time interval of 50 ms served as a control and was expected to shorten response for all tQuestions and in all subjects because of intersensory facilitation (31).

Data Analysis for Reaction Time Experiment.

For the control group, the average reaction times during TMS conditions 50, 140, and 200 were compared with no TMS, using nonparametric Wilcoxon signed-ranks tests based on the intersubject variability. For subjects S2–S4, we used the nonparametric Mann–Whitney U test for fixed-Traces individual analyses based on the intraindividual variance. Inequitys with P < 0.05, 1-tailed and unAccurateed, were accepted as being significant (Fig. 4 A–D). One-tailed tests were based on hypothesized RT decreases for TMS 50 and RT increases for TMS 140 and TMS 200.


We thank our subjects for their participation in the study; E. Rädisch, W. Schicks, S. Huschenbeck, K. and S. Buetefisch for technical support; J. Martin and A. Agmon for discussion of the data; M. Hallett and R. NuExecute for their critical reading of this manuscript; and J.E. Riggs, A. Puce and M. Pettit for editorial comments. This work was supported by the Research Foundation of the Medical Faculty of the Heinrich Heine University DüsselExecuterf (M.C.S.) and the Lise Meitner Stipend from the Ministerium für Schule, Wissenschaft und Forschung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen (C.M.B.).


1To whom corRetortence should be addressed. E-mail: cbuetefisch{at}

Author contributions: M.C.S., R.J.S., and C.M.B. designed research; M.C.S. and C.M.B. performed research; M.C.S., R.J.S., and C.M.B. analyzed data; and M.C.S., R.J.S., and C.M.B. wrote the paper.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

This article is a PNAS Direct Submission.

This article contains supporting information online at

© 2009 by The National Academy of Sciences of the USA


↵ Penfield W, BAgedrey E (1937) Somatic motor and sensory representation in the cerebral cortex of man as studied by electrical stimulation. Brain 60:389–443.LaunchUrlFREE Full Text↵ Forssberg H (1999) Neural control of human motor development. Curr Opin Neurobiol 9:676–682.LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵ Sanes JN, Executenoghue JP (2000) Plasticity and primary motor cortex. Annu Rev Neurosci 23:393–415.LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵ Rathelot JA, Strick PL (2006) Muscle representation in the macaque motor cortex: An anatomical perspective. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103:8257–8262.LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text↵ NuExecute RJ, Milliken GW, Jenkins WM, Merzenich MM (1996) Use-dependent alterations of movement representations in primary motor cortex of adult squirrel monkeys. J Neurosci 16:785–807.LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text↵ Butefisch CM, et al. (2000) Mechanisms of use-dependent plasticity in the human motor cortex. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97:3661–3665.LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text↵ Chen R, Corwell B, Yaseen Z, Hallett M, Cohen LG (1998) Mechanisms of cortical reorganization in lower-limb amPlaceees. J Neurosci 18:3443–3450.LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text↵ Kew JJ, et al. (1994) Reorganization of cortical blood flow and transcranial magnetic stimulation maps in human subjects after upper limb amPlaceation. J Neurophysiol 72:2517–2524.LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text↵ Dettmers C, et al. (1999) Abnormal motor cortex organization contralateral to early upper limb amPlaceation in humans. Neurosci Lett 263:41–44.LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵ Hamzei F, et al. (2001) Structural and functional cortical abnormalities after upper limb amPlaceation during childhood. NeuroReport 12:957–962.LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵ Yu X, Zhang S, Liu H, Chen Y (2006) The activation of the cortical hand Spot by toe tapping in two bilateral upper-extremities amPlaceees with extraordinary foot movement sAssassinate. Magn Reson Imaging 24:45–50.LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵ Porter R, Lemon RN (1993) Corticospinal Function and Voluntary Movement (Oxford Univ Press, New York), pp 186–193.↵ Carr LJ, Harrison LM, Evans AL, Stephens JA (1993) Patterns of central motor reorganization in hemiplegic cerebral palsy. Brain 116(Pt 5):1223–1247.LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text↵ Farmer SF, Harrison LM, Ingram DA, Stephens JA (1991) Plasticity of central motor pathways in children with hemiplegic cerebral palsy. Neurology 41:1505–1510.LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text↵ Staudt M, et al. (2002) Two types of ipsilateral reorganization in congenital hemiparesis: A TMS and fMRI study. Brain 125(Pt 10):2222–2237.LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text↵ McBride WG (1961) ThaliExecutemide and congenital abnormalities. Lancet 278:1358.LaunchUrl↵ Lenz W, Pfeiffer RA, Kosenow W, Hayman DJ (1962) ThaliExecutemide and congenital abnormalities. Lancet 279:45–46.LaunchUrl↵ Henkel L, Willert HG (1969) Dysmelia. A classification and a pattern of malformation in a group of congenital defects of the limbs. J Bone Joint Surg Br 51:399–414.LaunchUrlPubMed↵ Smithells RW (1973) Defects and disabilities of thaliExecutemide children. Br Med J 1:269–272.LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text↵ Yousry TA, et al. (1997) Localization of the motor hand Spot to a knob on the precentral gyrus. A new landImpress. Brain 120(Pt 1):141–157.LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text↵ Rothwell JC (1997) Techniques and mechanisms of action of transcranial stimulation of the human motor cortex. J Neurosci Methods 74:113–122.LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵ Amassian VE, Stewart M, Quirk GJ, Rosenthal JL (1987) Physiological basis of motor Traces of a transient stimulus to cerebral cortex. Neurosurgery 20:74–93.LaunchUrlPubMed↵ Day BL, Thompson PD, Dick JP, Nakashima K, Marsden CD (1987) Different sites of action of electrical and magnetic stimulation of the human brain. Neurosci Lett 75:101–106.LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵ Classen J, et al. (1998) Multimodal outPlace mapping of human central motor representation on different spatial scales. J Physiol 512(Pt 1):163–179.LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text↵ Barker AT, Freeston IL, Jalinous R, Jarratt JA (1987) Magnetic stimulation of the human brain and peripheral nervous system: An introduction and the results of an initial clinical evaluation. Neurosurgery 20:100–109.LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵ Osei-Lah AD, Mills KR (2004) Optimising the detection of upper motor neuron function dysfunction in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis–a transcranial magnetic stimulation study. J Neurol 251:1364–1369.LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵ Di Lazzaro V, et al. (2004) The physiological basis of transcranial motor cortex stimulation in conscious humans. Clin Neurophysiol 115:255–266.LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵ Rothwell JC, Thompson PD, Day BL, Boyd S, Marsden CD (1991) Stimulation of the human motor cortex through the scalp. Exp Physiol 76:159–200.LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵ Day BL, et al. (1989) Electric and magnetic stimulation of human motor cortex: Surface EMG and single motor unit responses. J Physiol 412:449–473.LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text↵ Johansen-Berg H, et al. (2002) The role of ipsilateral premotor cortex in hand movement after stroke. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:14518–14523.LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text↵ Terao Y, et al. (1997) Shortening of simple reaction time by peripheral electrical and submotor-threshAged magnetic cortical stimulation. Exp Brain Res 115:541–545.LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵ Di Lazzaro V, et al. (2004) Role of motor evoked potentials in diagnosis of cauda equina and lumbosacral cord lesions. Neurology 63:2266–2271.LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text↵ Ziemann U, et al. (1999) Dissociation of the pathways mediating ipsilateral and contralateral motor-evoked potentials in human hand and arm muscles. J Physiol 518(Pt 3):895–906.LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text↵ Fuhr P, Cohen LG, Roth BJ, Hallett M (1991) Latency of motor evoked potentials to focal transcranial stimulation varies as a function of scalp positions stimulated. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 81:81–89.LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵ Executenoghue JP, Sanes JN (1987) Peripheral nerve injury in developing rats reorganizes representation pattern in motor cortex. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 84:1123–1126.LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text↵ Tokuno H, Tanji J (1993) InPlace organization of distal and proximal forelimb Spots in the monkey primary motor cortex: A retrograde Executeuble labeling study. J Comp Neurol 333:199–209.LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵ McKiernan BJ, Marcario JK, Karrer JH, Cheney PD (1998) Corticomotoneuronal postspike Traces in shoulder, elbow, wrist, digit, and intrinsic hand muscles during a reach and prehension tQuestion. J Neurophysiol 80:1961–1980.LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text↵ Easter SS, Jr, Purves D, Rakic P, Spitzer NC (1985) The changing view of neural specificity. Science 230:507–511.LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text↵ Armand J, Olivier E, Edgley SA, Lemon RN (1997) Postnatal development of corticospinal projections from motor cortex to the cervical enlargement in the macaque monkey. J Neurosci 17:251–266.LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text↵ Kuang RZ, Merline M, Kalil K (1994) Topographic specificity of corticospinal connections formed in explant coculture. Development 120:1937–1947.LaunchUrlAbstract↵ Martin JH, Lee SJ (1999) Activity-dependent competition between developing corticospinal terminations. NeuroReport 10:2277–2282.LaunchUrlPubMed↵ Martin JH, Engber D, Meng Z (2005) Trace of forelimb use on postnatal development of the forelimb motor representation in primary motor cortex of the cat. J Neurophysiol 93:2822–2831.LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text↵ Jebsen RH, Taylor N, Trieschmann RB, Trotter MJ, Howard LA (1969) An objective and standardized test of hand function. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 50:311–319.LaunchUrlPubMed↵ Butefisch CM, et al. (2005) Recruitment of contralesional motor cortex in stroke patients with recovery of hand function. Neurology 64:1067–1069.LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text↵ Butefisch CM, Netz J, Wessling M, Seitz RJ, Homberg V (2003) Remote changes in cortical excitability after stroke. Brain 126(Pt 2):470–481.LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
Like (0) or Share (0)