Different contributions of efferent and reafferent feedback to sensorimotor temporal recalibration

Abstract

Adaptation to delays between actions and sensory feedback is important for efficiently interacting with our environment. Adaptation may rely on predictions of action-feedback pairing (motor-sensory component), or predictions of tactile-proprioceptive sensation from the action and sensory feedback of the action (inter-sensory component). Reliability of temporal information might differ across sensory feedback modalities (e.g. auditory or visual), which in turn influences adaptation. Here, we investigated the role of motor-sensory and inter-sensory components on sensorimotor temporal recalibration for motor-auditory (button press-tone) and motor-visual (button press-Gabor patch) events. In the adaptation phase of the experiment, action-feedback pairs were presented with systematic temporal delays (0 ms or 150 ms). In the subsequent test phase, audio/visual feedback of the action were presented with variable delays. The participants were then asked whether they detected a delay. To disentangle motor-sensory from inter-sensory component, we varied movements (active button press or passive depression of button) at adaptation and test. Our results suggest that motor-auditory recalibration is mainly driven by the motor-sensory component, whereas motor-visual recalibration is mainly driven by the inter-sensory component. Recalibration transferred from vision to audition, but not from audition to vision. These results indicate that motor-sensory and inter-sensory components contribute to recalibration in a modality-dependent manner.

The impact of cerebellar transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on sensorimotor and inter-sensory temporal recalibration

“…Indeed, flexible recalibration of the perceived relative timing between actions and their sensory outcomes is an established phenomenon known as sensorimotor temporal recalibration. Evidence for this phenomenon can be derived from a range of studies that aimed at inducing a sensorimotor temporal recalibration effect (TRE) by repeatedly inserting a constant delay between a participant’s action (like a button press) and its sensory outcome in form of a light flash or a brief tone ( Stetson et al, 2006 ; Heron et al, 2009 ; Sugano et al, 2010 , 2012 , 2016 , 2017 ; Stekelenburg et al, 2011 ; Tsujita and Ichikawa, 2012 ; Rohde and Ernst, 2013 ; Elijah et al, 2016 ; Cao et al, 2017 ; Cai et al, 2018 ; Arikan et al, 2021 ). After repeated exposure to such a manipulation, the delayed action-outcome was in fact perceived as occurring synchronously with the action ( Sugano et al, 2010 , Keetels and Vroomen, 2012 ; Sugano et al, 2012 , 2016 , 2017 ; Yamamoto and Kawabata, 2014 ) and shorter delays were less likely to be detected ( Arikan et al, 2021 ).…”

“…Evidence for this phenomenon can be derived from a range of studies that aimed at inducing a sensorimotor temporal recalibration effect (TRE) by repeatedly inserting a constant delay between a participant’s action (like a button press) and its sensory outcome in form of a light flash or a brief tone ( Stetson et al, 2006 ; Heron et al, 2009 ; Sugano et al, 2010 , 2012 , 2016 , 2017 ; Stekelenburg et al, 2011 ; Tsujita and Ichikawa, 2012 ; Rohde and Ernst, 2013 ; Elijah et al, 2016 ; Cao et al, 2017 ; Cai et al, 2018 ; Arikan et al, 2021 ). After repeated exposure to such a manipulation, the delayed action-outcome was in fact perceived as occurring synchronously with the action ( Sugano et al, 2010 , Keetels and Vroomen, 2012 ; Sugano et al, 2012 , 2016 , 2017 ; Yamamoto and Kawabata, 2014 ) and shorter delays were less likely to be detected ( Arikan et al, 2021 ). This indicates recalibration of the expected relative timing between action and outcome leading to a shift of synchrony perception toward the exposed delay.…”

“…Interestingly, the sensorimotor TRE could frequently be shown to transfer from one modality to another, such that the temporal perception of the action-outcome of one modality recalibrated to a delay previously inserted between the action and the outcome of another modality ( Heron et al, 2009 ; Sugano et al, 2010 , 2012 ; Arikan et al, 2021 ). This suggests that sensorimotor temporal recalibration does not occur in modality-specific circuits but rather on a supra-modal level, i.e., in the general predicted timing for sensory outcomes following an action.…”

Temporal perturbations cause movement-context independent but modality specific sensorimotor adaptation

“…less modality transfer for direct compared to indirect feedback, Schmitz & Bock, 2014 ). Additionally, it has recently been shown that motor-visual and motor-auditory recalibration are, to a certain extent, driven by different components (reafferent and efferent, respectively, Arikan, van Kemenade, Fiehler, Kircher, Drewing, & Straube, 2021 ), and transfer (or the lack thereof) between modalities can be explained by differential adaptation of these components. Thus, our finding of modality-specific temporal adaptation could also be a manifestation of the differential use of these components.…”

Temporal perturbations cause movement-context independent but modality specific sensorimotor adaptation

“…Whether motor-recalibration in one modality transfer to other modalities seems to be highly dependent on task similarity (e.g., no task-transfer within modality, de la Malla et al, 2014;modality-transfer within task, Sugano et al, 2010), or how performance feedback is presented (e.g., less modality transfer for direct compared to indirect feedback, Schmitz & Bock, 2014). Additionally, it has recently been shown that motor-visual and motor-auditory recalibration are, to a certain extent, driven by different components (reafferent and efferent, respectively, Arikan et al, 2021), and transfer (or the lack thereof) between modalities can be explained by differential adaptation of these components.…”