
==== Front
eLife
Elife
eLife
eLife
2050-084X
eLife Sciences Publications, Ltd

39311855
102187
10.7554/eLife.102187
version of record
Insight
Neuroscience
Motor Networks
When preparation pays off
Churchland Mark M https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9123-6526
mc3502@columbia.edu
123*
1 https://ror.org/00hj8s172 Grossman Center for the Statistics of Mind, Columbia University in the City of New York New York United States
2 https://ror.org/00hj8s172 Kavli Institute for Brain Science, Columbia University in the City of New York New York United States
3 https://ror.org/00hj8s172 Department of Neuroscience, Columbia University in the City of New York New York United States
23 9 2024
2024
13 e102187© 2024, Churchland
2024
Churchland
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Computational principles shed light on why movement is preceded by preparatory activity within the neural networks that control muscles.

recurrent neural networks
motor control
motor preparation
optimal control
delayed reaching
motor networks
Research organism

None
Author impact statementComputational principles shed light on why movement is preceded by preparatory activity within the neural networks that control muscles.
Template1
==== Body
pmcRelated research article Schimel M, Kao CT, Hennequin G. 2023. When and why does motor preparation arise in recurrent neural network models of motor control?. eLife 12:RP89131. doi: 10.7554/eLife.89131.

When we indulge in a mid-afternoon snack, neurons in our motor and premotor cortex are active well before we extend our arm to obtain the desired treat (Tanji and Evarts, 1976; Churchland and Shenoy, 2024). Multiple lines of evidence suggest that this ‘preparatory activity’ is the first stage in a chain of events that generates movement (Churchland and Shenoy, 2024; Sussillo et al., 2015; Inagaki et al., 2022). According to this model, descending inputs from higher cognitive areas arrive early, generating preparatory activity in the neural networks that control muscles. A triggering input then changes the dynamics of the network, prompting execution of the prepared movement.

Much like the initial position and velocity of an object determine its future trajectory, preparatory activity is thought to ‘seed’ the neural trajectory during execution. That trajectory is proposed to generate movement-producing commands (Churchland et al., 2012; Russo et al., 2018) and to determine the network’s control policy – how commands are adjusted based on sensory feedback during movement (Saxena et al., 2022; Pruszynski and Scott, 2012). Taken to the extreme, the movement and its control policy could be fully determined by the state of the network just before execution begins, with no additional descending inputs required during action. Indeed, neural activity in ‘preparatory dimensions’ (which are presumed to reflect descending inputs) becomes diminished during successful movement, only increasing if corrections or additional actions are needed (Ames et al., 2019; Stavisky et al., 2017; Zimnik and Churchland, 2021).

Because preparatory activity is consistently present before voluntary movement (Lara et al., 2018), it is tempting to think that nature had to use this strategy. Yet motor networks could, in principle, use a range of approaches. Movement could be specified by descending inputs that occur solely during preparation, or solely during execution. Given these options, why would nature choose the preparatory strategy, especially when the time used to prepare might sometimes be the difference between success and failure? Modeling approaches can help answer these questions by allowing scientists to build networks that use a range of strategies, then assess which one is ‘best’. Now, in eLife, Marine Schimel (University of Cambridge), Ta-Chu Kao (Meta Reality Labs) and Guillaume Hennequin (University of Cambridge) report the results of modeling work that allowed them to explore why nature prepares (Schimel et al., 2023).

The team built networks that simulate the dynamics of the motor cortex and generate muscle commands to control an arm as it reaches towards one of eight targets. Networks rely on descending inputs specific to the desired reach target. Schimel et al. allow such inputs to arrive at any time before or during the reach. This creates a spectrum of possibilities, from movement being entirely determined by preparation (no input required during action) to completely unprepared (no inputs arriving early). To assess which is best, Schimel et al. make reasonable assumptions about what nature is trying to do and what it is trying to avoid: in formal terms, they create a ‘cost function’. Cost is increased if the movement takes too long, is premature, or is inaccurate. Another assumption is that descending inputs to the motor cortex should be small and/or simple. This makes sense: if descending inputs had no limitations, there would be no need for a motor cortex. To formalize this intuition, cost rises if inputs are too large or change too swiftly. The central finding of the study is that the total cost is smallest when inputs arrive early, creating a preparatory stage. These early inputs created the best balance between needing to be accurate, needing to be fast, and needing to use small and/or simple descending inputs. Thus, the strategy of preparing is optimal, likely explaining why nature uses it.

Schimel et al. establish that two basic properties of recurrent networks cause preparation to be a good strategy. First, descending inputs must be able to alter network activity without producing an immediate change in output. In technical terms, there must exist ‘output-null dimensions’, so that preparation can exist without causing movement. Networks must also have strong dynamics, such that preparatory activity can shape future outputs. Because such dynamics are deeply intertwined with the benefits of preparation, the team was able to predict the strength of preparatory activity for a given network based on features of its dynamics. Preparation is pronounced when output-null dimensions strongly influence future network output, making preparation effective. Additionally, preparation is pronounced when options for controlling network output (via descending inputs) are generally limited, making non-preparation-based strategies less effective.

Until the present study, network models have not attempted to explain why preparation exists – they have simply assumed that it does. Yet the preparation-encouraging properties highlighted by Schimel et al. occur in many current models (Hennequin et al., 2014; Sussillo et al., 2015; Saxena et al., 2022). The finding that preparation is optimal therefore justifies, in retrospect, the choice to supply networks with distinct preparatory inputs during a dedicated preparatory stage. Also based on principles of optimality, the study is able to explain qualitative features of preparation during movement sequences (a series of movements performed in a given order). Although one might have expected a single bout of preparation before a swift two-reach sequence, empirically each reach is preceded by its own dedicated preparatory phase. This strategy is naturally reproduced by the simulated networks.

Overall, the work by Schimel et al. reshapes our understanding of preparation. Historically, this process has been considered a distinct stage where movement is programmed. The new proposed framework absorbs aspects of this view, yet suggests that preparation is a special case of a broader phenomenon. Given many output-null dimensions and strong dynamics (Churchland and Shenoy, 2024; Kaufman et al., 2014), inputs can alter motor cortex activity in ways that do not immediately alter network output yet could facilitate future output. This strategy may be used not only during preparation but also during corrections, when canceling movement, and when stringing multiple movements together (Ames et al., 2019; Stavisky et al., 2017; Zimnik and Churchland, 2021; Pani et al., 2022).

Competing interests

Mark M Churchland is at the Grossman Center for the Statistics of Mind, the Kavli Institute for Brain Science and the Department of Neuroscience at Columbia University in the City of New York, New York, United States

No competing interests declared.
==== Refs
References

Ames KC Ryu SI Shenoy KV 2019 Simultaneous motor preparation and execution in a last-moment reach correction task Nature Communications 10 2718 10.1038/s41467-019-10772-2 31221968
Churchland MM Cunningham JP Kaufman MT Foster JD Nuyujukian P Ryu SI Shenoy KV 2012 Neural population dynamics during reaching Nature 487 51 56 10.1038/nature11129 22722855
Churchland MM Shenoy KV 2024 Preparatory activity and the expansive null-space Nature Reviews Neuroscience 25 213 236 10.1038/s41583-024-00796-z 38443626
Hennequin G Vogels TP Gerstner W 2014 Optimal control of transient dynamics in balanced networks supports generation of complex movements Neuron 82 1394 1406 10.1016/j.neuron.2014.04.045 24945778
Inagaki HK Chen S Ridder MC Sah P Li N Yang Z Hasanbegovic H Gao Z Gerfen CR Svoboda K 2022 A midbrain-thalamus-cortex circuit reorganizes cortical dynamics to initiate movement Cell 185 1065 1081 10.1016/j.cell.2022.02.006 35245431
Kaufman MT Churchland MM Ryu SI Shenoy KV 2014 Cortical activity in the null space: permitting preparation without movement Nature Neuroscience 17 440 448 10.1038/nn.3643 24487233
Lara AH Elsayed GF Zimnik AJ Cunningham JP Churchland MM 2018 Conservation of preparatory neural events in monkey motor cortex regardless of how movement is initiated eLife 7 e31826 10.7554/eLife.31826 30132759
Pani P Giamundo M Giarrocco F Mione V Fontana R Brunamonti E Mattia M Ferraina S 2022 Neuronal population dynamics during motor plan cancellation in nonhuman primates PNAS 119 e2122395119 10.1073/pnas.2122395119 35867763
Pruszynski JA Scott SH 2012 Optimal feedback control and the long-latency stretch response Experimental Brain Research 218 341 359 10.1007/s00221-012-3041-8 22370742
Russo AA Bittner SR Perkins SM Seely JS London BM Lara AH Miri A Marshall NJ Kohn A Jessell TM Abbott LF Cunningham JP Churchland MM 2018 Motor cortex embeds muscle-like commands in an untangled population response Neuron 97 953 966 10.1016/j.neuron.2018.01.004 29398358
Saxena S Russo AA Cunningham J Churchland MM 2022 Motor cortex activity across movement speeds is predicted by network-level strategies for generating muscle activity eLife 11 e67620 10.7554/eLife.67620 35621264
Schimel M Kao CT Hennequin G 2023 When and why does motor preparation arise in recurrent neural network models of motor control? eLife 12 RP89131 10.7554/eLife.89131.1
Stavisky SD Kao JC Ryu SI Shenoy KV 2017 Motor cortical visuomotor feedback activity is initially isolated from downstream targets in output-null neural state space dimensions Neuron 95 195 208 10.1016/j.neuron.2017.05.023 28625485
Sussillo D Churchland MM Kaufman MT Shenoy KV 2015 A neural network that finds A naturalistic solution for the production of muscle activity Nature Neuroscience 18 1025 1033 10.1038/nn.4042 26075643
Tanji J Evarts EV 1976 Anticipatory activity of motor cortex neurons in relation to direction of an intended movement Journal of Neurophysiology 39 1062 1068 10.1152/jn.1976.39.5.1062 824409
Zimnik AJ Churchland MM 2021 Independent generation of sequence elements by motor cortex Nature Neuroscience 24 412 424 10.1038/s41593-021-00798-5 33619403
