Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Introduction to Nuclear Reprogramming01:14

Introduction to Nuclear Reprogramming

1.9K
Nuclear reprogramming is the process of switching gene expression of one cell type to that of another cell type, usually from a differentiated cell state to an undifferentiated cell state. Differentiation occurs during processes such as development and morphogenesis, tissue regeneration, and malignancy. Cells can also be artificially induced to reprogram their gene expression by techniques such as nuclear transfer, induced pluripotency, and cell fusion. Such techniques have many applications in...
1.9K
Methods of Nuclear Reprogramming01:24

Methods of Nuclear Reprogramming

1.8K
Nuclear reprogramming is a process of transforming one cell type into an unrelated cell type by epigenetic changes that alter the cell’s original gene expression pattern. Such epigenetic changes force cells to express a different set of genes, which play a significant role in inducing transformation into other cell types. Nuclear reprogramming offers applications in reproductive cloning for livestock propagation and regenerative medicine — developing patient-specific cells for...
1.8K
Somatic to iPS Cell Reprogramming01:29

Somatic to iPS Cell Reprogramming

2.2K
Reprogramming alters the gene expression in somatic cells, transforming them into induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells over several generations. Scientists can reprogram cells by introducing genes for four transcription factors—Oct4, Sox2, Klf4, and c-Myc (OSKM) by viral or non-viral methods. These factors are also known as Yamanaka factors after Shinya Yamanaka, who first generated iPS cells using mouse skin cells. Yamanaka was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2012...
2.2K

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

What Is the StartReact Effect?

Acta physiologica (Oxford, England)·2026
Same author

Temperature Control After In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: Outcomes From the Discover In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Cohort.

Critical care medicine·2026
Same author

Detecting momentary reward and affect with real-time passive digital sensor data.

JAMIA open·2026
Same author

Remote Patient Monitoring for Global Emergencies: Case Study in Patients With COVID-19.

JMIR formative research·2025
Same author

Diverse Genomes, Shared Health: Insights from a Health System Biobank.

medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences·2025
Same author

Tactile suppression is linked to movement onset for startle-triggered responses.

Behavioural brain research·2024

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jun 17, 2025

Revised and Neuroimaging-Compatible Versions of the Dual Task Screen
07:52

Revised and Neuroimaging-Compatible Versions of the Dual Task Screen

Published on: October 5, 2020

3.5K

Switching between task control modes incurs greater reprogramming costs than programming the response de novo.

Dana Maslovat1, Alex Bui1, Allison Bui1

  • 1School of Human Kinetics, University of Ottawa, 200 Lees Ave, Ottawa, ON, Canada.

Neuroscience
|August 5, 2024
PubMed
Summary

Switching between predictive and reactive movement control requires significant reprogramming time. The brain needs more time to switch control modes than to initiate a new response.

Keywords:
Anticipation-timingMotor preparationMotor reprogrammingPreprogrammingReaction timeTask switching

More Related Videos

Rodent Brain Microinjection to Study Molecular Substrates of Motivated Behavior
10:05

Rodent Brain Microinjection to Study Molecular Substrates of Motivated Behavior

Published on: September 16, 2015

14.3K
Real-Time Proxy-Control of Re-Parameterized Peripheral Signals using a Close-Loop Interface
11:54

Real-Time Proxy-Control of Re-Parameterized Peripheral Signals using a Close-Loop Interface

Published on: May 8, 2021

4.3K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jun 17, 2025

Revised and Neuroimaging-Compatible Versions of the Dual Task Screen
07:52

Revised and Neuroimaging-Compatible Versions of the Dual Task Screen

Published on: October 5, 2020

3.5K
Rodent Brain Microinjection to Study Molecular Substrates of Motivated Behavior
10:05

Rodent Brain Microinjection to Study Molecular Substrates of Motivated Behavior

Published on: September 16, 2015

14.3K
Real-Time Proxy-Control of Re-Parameterized Peripheral Signals using a Close-Loop Interface
11:54

Real-Time Proxy-Control of Re-Parameterized Peripheral Signals using a Close-Loop Interface

Published on: May 8, 2021

4.3K

Area of Science:

  • Motor control
  • Human movement science
  • Cognitive neuroscience

Background:

  • Movement synchronization differs between reactive and predictive control modes.
  • Reactive control synchronizes muscle activity (EMG), leading to asynchronous limb movement.
  • Predictive control synchronizes limb movement by delaying muscle activity onset.

Purpose of the Study:

  • Investigate the reprogramming costs of switching between predictive and reactive control modes.
  • Examine how timing of a warning stimulus affects the ability to switch control modes.
  • Quantify the time cost associated with switching control strategies for synchronous limb movements.

Main Methods:

  • Participants performed a synchronous hand and heel lift task.
  • A warning stimulus was presented 250 ms or 500 ms before the movement target.
  • Reaction time (RT) was measured to assess control mode switching and reprogramming costs.

Main Results:

  • Participants successfully switched to reactive control only when the stimulus was presented 500 ms before the target.
  • Switching to reactive control resulted in significantly longer RTs compared to simple and choice RT tasks.
  • Reprogramming costs for switching control modes were substantial, exceeding the time for de novo response programming.

Conclusions:

  • Switching between predictive and reactive motor control incurs significant reprogramming costs.
  • The ability to switch control modes depends on the available preparation time.
  • These findings highlight the complex neural processes involved in adapting motor control strategies.