Poster No:
1998
Submission Type:
Abstract Submission
Authors:
Yasunori Kotani1, Yoshimi Ohgami1, Mari Yanagi1, Hajime Kageyama2, Nobukiyo Yoshida3, Hiroyuki Akai2, Akira Kunimatsu4, Shigeru Kiryu5, Yusuke Inoue6
Institutions:
1Institute of Science Tokyo, Meguro, Tokyo, 2The University of Tokyo, Minato, Tokyo, 3Niigata University of Health and Welfare, Niigata, Niigata, 4International University of Health and Welfare, Minato, Tokyo, 5International University of Health and Welfare, Narita, Chiba, 6Kitasato University, Sagamihara, Kanagawa
First Author:
Co-Author(s):
Akira Kunimatsu
International University of Health and Welfare
Minato, Tokyo
Shigeru Kiryu
International University of Health and Welfare
Narita, Chiba
Introduction:
Our previous study revealed that the right anterior insula (aINS) is activated by stimulus presentations in either the left or right hemispace, whereas the left aINS is activated only by right hemispace stimulation (Ohgami et al., 2023). In other words, the right hemispace is covered by the left and right aINS while the left hemispace is covered by only the right aINS. This right hemisphere dominance of the aINS could be a reason for the hemi-spatial neglect caused by a right hemisphere damage.In the present study, we investigated whether the right hemisphere dominance of the aINS could be observed for somatosensory stimuli. There is a possibility that the right hemisphere dominance would be varied because the somatosensory information cloud be dominantly processed in the posterior insula (pINS) rather than the aINS. If the somatosensory information is processed dominantly by the pINS, the right-side stimulation of the body could activate the left pINS (L to R), and the stimulation of the left body could activate the right pINS (R to L) due to the contralateral stimulation effect (Ohgami et al., 2023). In contrast, if the aINS dominantly processes the somatosensory information rather than the pINS, the right hemisphere dominance would be observed like hemispace stimulations. We delivered air puff stimulations to both the left and right sides of the body, varying the location (hand and foot). This approach allowed us to determine whether the contralateral stimulation effect of the pINS or the right hemisphere dominance of the aINS would be more prominent in processing somatosensory stimuli.
Methods:
Participants were 31 healthy adults. They performed a time estimation task, where they had to press a button four seconds after an instruction stimulus. A few seconds after pressing the button, a unilateral somatosensory feedback stimulus was presented. There were five experimental conditions: left hand (L-Hand), right hand (R-Hand), left foot (L-Foot), right foot (R-Foot), and no feedback (NoFB) conditions. The somatosensory feedback stimulus consisted of three different patterns; one air puff, two air puffs, and three air puffs, meaning that button press was correct, too early, or too late, respectively. In the no feedback condition, the feedback stimulus was omitted. In the fMRI experiment, the first set of four contrast images (L-Hand > NoFB, R-Hand > NoFB, L-Foot > NoFB, R-Foot > NoFB) during pre-feedback anticipation phase (two-second duration before the feedback stimulus) were constructed to estimate the right-hemisphere dominance of the aINS. The second set of four contrast images (L-Hand > R-Hand, R-Hand > L-Hand, L-Foot > R-Foot, R-Foot > L-Foot) were constructed to evaluate the contralateral stimulation effect of the pINS.
Results:
The results of the first set of contrast images revealed that the left and right aINS were activated regardless of the stimulation side (left/right) and location (hand/foot) suggesting the absence of the right hemisphere dominance of the aINS. The second set of the contrast showed the contralateral simulation effect of the pINS. That is, the activation in the left pINS was observed in the R-Hand > L-Hand and the R-Foot > L-Foot contrasts, and the activation in the right pINS was observed in the L-Hand > R-Hand and L-Foot > R-Foot contrasts.
Conclusions:
The present findings support the evidence that somatosensory information is processed dominantly in the pINS rather than the aINS. The results also show the difference of information processing in the insula between the somatosensory stimulus and other form of the stimulus like the visual stimulus. The functional dissociation of aINS and pINS between somatosensory and visual information might be an underlying mechanism of the rehabilitation using spatiomotor cueing combining left arm movement and left side visual attention to improve the symptom of the left spatial neglect (Robertson et al., 1992).
Perception, Attention and Motor Behavior:
Attention: Auditory/Tactile/Motor 1
Attention: Visual 2
Keywords:
FUNCTIONAL MRI
Somatosensory
1|2Indicates the priority used for review
By submitting your proposal, you grant permission for the Organization for Human Brain Mapping (OHBM) to distribute your work in any format, including video, audio print and electronic text through OHBM OnDemand, social media channels, the OHBM website, or other electronic publications and media.
I accept
The Open Science Special Interest Group (OSSIG) is introducing a reproducibility challenge for OHBM 2025. This new initiative aims to enhance the reproducibility of scientific results and foster collaborations between labs. Teams will consist of a “source” party and a “reproducing” party, and will be evaluated on the success of their replication, the openness of the source work, and additional deliverables. Click here for more information.
Propose your OHBM abstract(s) as source work for future OHBM meetings by selecting one of the following options:
I do not want to participate in the reproducibility challenge.
Please indicate below if your study was a "resting state" or "task-activation” study.
Task-activation
Healthy subjects only or patients (note that patient studies may also involve healthy subjects):
Healthy subjects
Was this research conducted in the United States?
No
Were any human subjects research approved by the relevant Institutional Review Board or ethics panel?
NOTE: Any human subjects studies without IRB approval will be automatically rejected.
Yes
Were any animal research approved by the relevant IACUC or other animal research panel?
NOTE: Any animal studies without IACUC approval will be automatically rejected.
Not applicable
Please indicate which methods were used in your research:
Functional MRI
For human MRI, what field strength scanner do you use?
3.0T
Which processing packages did you use for your study?
SPM
Provide references using APA citation style.
Yoshimi Ohgami, Yasunori Kotani, Nobukiyo Yoshida, Hiroyuki Akai, Akira Kunimatsu, Shigeru Kiryu, Yusuke Inoue, The contralateral effects of anticipated stimuli on brain activity measured by ERP and fMRI, Psychophysiology, 60(3), e14189, 2023
Robertson, I. H., North, N. T., & Geggie, C. (1992). Spatiomotor cueing in unilateral left neglect: three case studies of its therapeutic effects. Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry, 55(9), 799–805. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.55.9.799
No