This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Mental Health, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://mental.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.
Virtual clinical interactions have increased tremendously since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. While they certainly have their advantages, there also exist potential limitations, for example, in establishing a therapeutic alliance, discussing complex clinical scenarios, etc. This may be due to possible disruptions in the accurate activation of the human mirror neuron system (MNS), a posited physiological template for effective social communication.
This study aimed to compare motor resonance, a putative marker of MNS activity, estimated using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) elicited while viewing virtual (video-based) and actual or real (enacted by a person) actions in healthy individuals. We hypothesized that motor resonance will be greater during real compared to virtual action observation.
We compared motor resonance or motor-evoked potential (MEP) facilitation during the observation of virtual (presented via videos) and real (enacted in person) actions, relative to static image observation in healthy individuals using TMS. The MEP recordings were obtained by 2 single-pulse (neuronal membrane excitability–driven) TMS paradigms of different intensities and 2 paired-pulse (cortical gamma-aminobutyric acid-interneuron–driven) TMS paradigms.
This study comprised 64 participants. Using the repeated measures ANOVA, we observed a significant time effect for MEP facilitation from static to virtual and real observation states when recorded using 3 of the 4 TMS paradigms. Post hoc pairwise comparisons with Benjamini-Hochberg false discovery rate correction revealed significant MEP facilitation in both virtual and real observation states relative to static image observation; however, we also observed a significant time effect between the 2 action observation states (real > virtual) with 2 of the 4 TMS paradigms.
Our results indicate that visual cues expressed via both virtual (video) or real (in person) modes elicit physiological responses within the putative MNS, but this effect is more pronounced for actions presented in person. This has relevance to the appropriate implementation of digital health solutions, especially those pertaining to mental health.
With the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the communication challenges in clinical scenarios thereof [
We present results from a TMS experiment in healthy volunteers that probed motor resonance or motor-evoked potential (MEP) facilitation during action observation relative to rest states, which is an indirect measurement of MNS activity in humans [
The data were obtained from 2 studies comparing motor resonance between patients with schizophrenia [
The TMS experiment was performed using a MagPro R30 system with MagOption (MagVenture); electromyography was obtained using a single-channel MEP monitor device mounted on the TMS device, and this data was analyzed using Signal-4 Software (Cambridge Electronic Devices). After localizing the motor hand area in the left hemisphere, we determined stimulus intensities to elicit 50-μV (resting motor threshold [RMT]) and 1-mV (SI1mV) amplitudes of MEP in at least 6 out of 10 trials. The mean (SD) for RMT and SI1mV were 36.6 (SD 6.7) mV and 48.1 (SD 10.2) mV, respectively. Thereafter, we administered 10 pulses each of the 120% RMT, SI1mV, and short- and long-interval cortical inhibition (SICI and LICI, respectively) paradigms over the left motor cortex in a pseudorandom sequence at 5-second intervals while obtaining MEP recordings from the right first dorsal interosseus muscle. These recordings were obtained as the participants observed 3 states, presented in a random order across participants: (1) a static image of a hand and a lock and key, (2) a video of locking and unlocking actions with a key held in the right hand (virtual observation), and (3) the same action enacted by a volunteer (real observation). While SICI was measured at interstimulus intervals of 3 milliseconds between the subthreshold (80% RMT) and suprathreshold stimuli (SI1mV), LICI was measured at 100 milliseconds between 2 suprathreshold stimuli (SI1mV). SICI and LICI were expressed as a percentage of the ratio between the conditioned MEPs and the nonconditioned MEPs with SI1mV. MEP recordings with 120% RMT and SI1mV were expressed in millivolts. In order to evaluate changes in MEP across the 3 experimental observation states (static, virtual, and real action observation), we performed a 1-way (within-subjects) repeated measures ANOVA. The omnibus tests for each TMS paradigm were 2-tailed, and results were regarded as significant at an α probability level (
The National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences ethics committee approved the study protocols of the 2 studies [
This study comprised 64 participants (mean age 29.5, SD 8.5 years; females: n=31, 48%, males: n=33, 52%; mean years of education 13, SD 4.1 years).
The 1-way repeated measures ANOVA (
Post hoc pairwise comparisons with Benjamini-Hochberg false discovery rate correction revealed significant MEP facilitation in both virtual (120% RMT and SI1mV) and real (120% RMT, SI1mV, and SICI) observation states relative to static image observation (
Motor-evoked potentials (in millivolts) with single- and paired-pulse stimulation paradigms during static and action observation experimental states.
TMSa paradigm and observation states | Mean (SD) | |||
|
|
8.4 (2, 126)d | ||
|
Static | 0.82 (0.26) |
|
|
|
Virtual action observation | 0.87 (0.24) |
|
|
|
Real action observation | 0.92 (0.24) |
|
|
|
|
6.6 (2, 110)d | ||
|
Static | 0.68 (0.31) |
|
|
|
Virtual action observation | 0.76 (0.29) |
|
|
|
Real action observation | 0.77 (0.32) |
|
|
|
|
4.3 (2, 102)d | ||
|
Static | 69.9 (28.4) |
|
|
|
Virtual action observation | 73.2 (32.7) |
|
|
|
Real action observation | 79.7 (35.8) |
|
|
|
|
0.35 (2, 126) | ||
|
Static | 42.6 (39.4) |
|
|
|
Virtual action observation | 44.2 (43.7) |
|
|
|
Real action observation | 42 (43.7) |
|
aTMS: transcranial magnetic stimulation.
bF statistic represents the time effect from a 1-way (within-subjects) repeated measures ANOVA.
cSI1mV: stimulus intensity to elicit 1 mV motor-evoked potential (MEP).
d
eRMT: resting motor threshold.
fSICI and LICI were expressed as a percentage of the ratio between the conditioned and nonconditioned MEP with a stimulus intensity of SI1mV, that is, (conditioned MEP/nonconditioned MEP) × 100.
gSICI: short-interval cortical inhibition.
hLICI: long-interval cortical inhibition.
Motor evoked potentials during static, virtual, and real action observation conditions. Note: the data represent means and standard errors of the mean (error bars);
We observed motor resonance as evidenced by a significant time effect for MEP facilitation in both action observation states relative to static image observation using 3 out of 4 TMS paradigms. Even though MEP facilitation was observed in both real and virtual actions, the magnitude of this facilitation was significantly greater for real actions in 2 (SI1mV and SICI) of the 3 paradigms. Together, these findings indicate that putative MNS activity was observed in response to both virtual and real action observation stimuli, but more so with the real action stimuli. It is perhaps reassuring, especially from a clinical scenario, that actions observed through virtual modes of communication elicit similar physiological responses as real enacted actions. This might partly explain how the quality of doctor-patient communication is broadly similar between video-based and face-to-face consultations [
Important caveats do exist in the interpretation of these results. We did not measure social information processing in real time as subjects observed actions. Further, the time effect was not significant for LICI; a similar lack of MEP facilitation and therefore motor resonance was noted with the LICI paradigm in our earlier study [
In summary, we provide preliminary evidence that visual cues expressed via both virtual (video) or real (in person) modes elicit physiological responses within the putative MNS, but this effect is more pronounced for actions presented in person. Future studies need to (1) replicate these observations in clinical contexts, using different approaches of eliciting putative MNS responses; (2) examine social cue perception and mental state attributions during virtual and in-person social interactions; and (3) examine the associations between cortical physiology (eg, putative MNS activity) and social cognition abilities across virtual and in-person social and clinical interactions. These findings will have relevance to the appropriate implementation of digital health solutions, especially those pertaining to mental health.
gamma-aminobutyric acid
long-interval cortical inhibition
motor-evoked potential
mirror neuron system
resting motor threshold
short-interval cortical inhibition
transcranial magnetic stimulation
We acknowledge financial assistance from the Department of Biotechnology, Government of India (grant BT/PR14311/ Med/30/470/2010) to UMM. The funding body had no role in data analysis or the decision to publish.
UMM conceptualized this work, supervised and collected data, performed the analysis, and prepared the first draft of the manuscript. RB collected data and edited the manuscript. AR collected data. MK conceptualized the second experiment and supervised data collection. JT conceptualized the first experiment, supervised data collection, and edited the manuscript.
None declared.