A multitude of events bombard our sensory systems at every moment of our lives. Thus, it is important for the sensory cortex to gate unimportant events. Tactile suppression is a well‐known phenomenon defined as a reduced ability to detect tactile events on the skin before and during movement. Previous experiments found detection rates decrease just prior to and during finger abduction, and decrease according to the proximity of the moving effector. This study examined how tactile detection changes during a reach to grasp. Fourteen human participants used their right hand to reach and grasp a cylinder. Tactors were attached to the index finger, the fifth digit, and the forearm of both the right and left arm and vibrated at various epochs relative to a “go” tone. Results showed that detection rates at the forearm decreased before movement onset; whereas at the right index finger, right fifth digit and at the left index finger, left fifth digit, and forearm sites did not decrease like in the right forearm. These results indicate that the task affects gating dynamics in a temporally‐ and contextually dependent manner and implies that feed‐forward motor planning processes can modify sensory signals.
A trial-by-trial analysis was used to systematically examine the influence of switching visual conditions on visual feedback utilization for a manual aiming movement. In experiment one, vision was randomly manipulated from trial to trial with no more than four consecutive trials in the same visual condition. In experiment two, participants were provided with certainty of visual feedback availability prior to every trial. Results of both studies revealed that movement endpoint variability was most associated with visual feedback availability on the previous trial. Furthermore, correlation analyses comparing movement trajectory at 25, 50 and 75% with movement end (i.e. 100%) revealed that the efficiency of online corrections also depends on the availability of visual feedback on the previous trial. These results suggest that the accuracy of an aiming movement is highly dependent on processing of offline visual information from the preceding trial.
Traditionally our understanding of goal-directed action been derived from either behavioral findings or neuroanatomically derived imaging (i.e., fMRI). While both of these approaches have proven valuable, they lack the ability to determine a direct locus of function while concurrently having the necessary temporal precision needed to understand millisecond scale neural interactions respectively. In this review we summarize some seminal behavioral findings across three broad areas (target perturbation, feed-forward control, and feedback processing) and for each discuss the application of electroencephalography (EEG) to the understanding of the temporal nature of visual cue utilization during movement planning, control, and learning using four existing scalp potentials. Specifically, we examine the appropriateness of using the N100 potential as an indicator of corrective behaviors in response to target perturbation, the N200 as an index of movement planning, the P300 potential as a metric of feed-forward processes, and the feedback-related negativity as an index of motor learning. Although these existing components have potential for insight into cognitive contributions and the timing of the neural processes that contribute to motor control further research is needed to expand the control-related potentials and to develop methods to permit their accurate characterization across a wide range of behavioral tasks.
Recently, D. Elliott et al. (2010) asserted that the current control phase of a movement could be segregated in multiple processes, including impulse and limb-target regulation processes. The authors aimed to provide further empirical evidence and determine some of the constraints that govern these visuomotor processes. In 2 experiments, vision was presented or withdrawn when limb velocity was above or below selected velocity criteria. The authors observed that vision provided between 0.8 and 0.9 m/s significantly improved impulse regulation processes while vision provided up to 1.1 m/s significantly increased limb-target regulation processes. These results lend support to D. Elliott et al. and provide evidence that impulse regulation and limb-target regulation can take place at different velocities during a movement.
Previous research has demonstrated that movement time and kinematic properties of limb trajectories to the first target of a two-target reversal movement differ to that of single-target responses. In the present study we investigated whether two-target reversal movements are organized as a single unit of action or two separate components by perturbing the number of targets prior to and during movement execution. In one experiment, participants performed single-target movements and on one-third of the trials a second target was presented either at target presentation, movement onset or peak velocity. On those trials in which a second target was presented, participants were required to complete their movement to the first target and then move to the second target. In a second experiment, the reverse was the case with participants performing two-target movements that changed to single-target movement on one-third of the trials. A two-target movement time advantage was observed only when the required response was specified prior to movement initiation. Also, participants failed to prevent movement towards the second target when the requirements of the task changed from a two-target to single-target response at movement onset or later. These results indicate that two-target reversal movements were organized as a single unit of action prior to response initiation.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.