One explanation could be that ‘interoceptive’ attention to specific areas of the body engages more focal mechanisms than are recruited by ‘exteroceptive’ attention to locations outside the body. There is much literature describing the effects of somatosensory attention on sensory processing and measures of brain activation. Attention to an expected location at an expected time improves sensory discrimination, reduces the electroencephalographic

activity of the sensorimotor cortex in the alpha and beta bands, and increases activity in the sensory cortex (e.g. Macaluso et al., 2003; van Ede et al., 2011). However, there are few descriptions of whether there are concomitant effects on the motor cortex. Johansen-Berg & Matthews (2002) showed in a functional magnetic resonance imaging study that diverting attention away from a movement

could reduce activation of selleck chemicals posterior regions of the M1. Conversely, Macaluso et al. (2003) selleck products noted that sensory attention to the hand may increase activity in the pre-central as well as post-central cortex. Similarly, it is interesting to note that the depression of electroencephalographic beta rhythms in the sensorimotor cortex is more traditionally associated with the facilitation of movement rather than somatosensation, although there is some evidence that beta activity can arise in the sensory as well as the motor Benzatropine cortex. A number of other studies have also documented changes in responses to TMS when individuals are instructed to attend to the hand (see ‘Introduction’). However, there have been few investigations comparing the effects of different modalities and locations of sensory attention

on motor cortex excitability. The present task involved attention to rare electrical stimuli applied directly to the skin. However, although rare, the timing of the stimuli was unpredictable so that participants had to attend continuously to sensation from that area of the skin in order to perform the task correctly. Motor cortex excitability was probed during this sustained attention. The results showed that attention to the skin overlying the target muscle relatively increased MEPs compared with a no-attention condition. There were no significant effects on MEPs if the skin area was distant from the muscle [middle dorsum (experiment 1) or over the ADM (experiment 2) for MEPs in the FDI]. The results are similar to those described by Gandevia & Rothwell (1987) who found that they could differentially modulate the thresholds for the production of MEPs in two intrinsic hand muscles by focussing attention on one or the other in turn. In their experiments, participants were instructed to focus on ‘motor commands’ to the individual muscles.