Effects of acoustic startle stimuli on interceptive action

Tresilian, James R.; Plooy, Annaliese M.

doi:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2006.06.029

Cited by 41 publications

(60 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, STB did not affect overall task performance, whereas WN triggered early responses. The effects of WN might be related to those produced by loud auditory stimuli, which can trigger the involuntary release of motor actions during the preparatory phase (Tresilian and Plooy 2006;Valls-Sole et al 1999). In this regards, it has recently been shown that the early release of motor responses by auditory stimuli may also involve the motor cortex, in addition to subcortical pathways (Marinovic et al 2014).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sound-evoked vestibular stimulation affects the anticipation of gravity effects during visual self-motion

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Humans anticipate the effects of gravity during visually simulated self-motion in the vertical direction. Here we report that an artificial vestibular stimulation consisting of short-tone bursts (STB) suppresses this anticipation. Participants pressed a button upon entering a tunnel during virtual-reality roller coaster rides in downward or forward directions. In different trials, we delivered STB, pulsed white noise (WN), or no sound (NO). In the control conditions (WN, NO), participants responded earlier during downward than forward motion irrespective of true kinematics, consistent with the a priori expectation that downward but not forward motion is accelerated by gravity. STB canceled the difference in response timing between the two directions, without affecting overall task performance. Thus, we argue that vestibular signals play a role in the anticipation of visible gravity effects during self-motion.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sound-evoked vestibular stimulation affects the anticipation of gravity effects during visual self-motion

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The reason for the absence of an effect of SAS is not the complexity of the program or the fact that the SAS is applied during an ongoing activity. In fact, the StartReact effect has been reported during execution of complex motor programs, such as obstacle avoidance (Queralt et al 2008b), sit-to-stand (Queralt et al 2008a), or gait initiation (Queralt et al 2010), as well as during ongoing movement execution, such as with object interception (Tresilian and Plooy 2006) or stepping in unexpected directions (Reynolds and Day 2007). Possibly, the results of our study are more in line with those of Nieuwenhuijzen et al (2000), who reported how the startle reaction was incorporated in the gait pattern of healthy subjects.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is known that, in a reaction time paradigm, highly prepared motor programs can be executed faster, without otherwise changing their configuration, when a startling auditory stimulus (SAS) is applied together with the imperative signal (IS), or at some time around it, in the context of the so-called StartReact effect (Carlsen et al 2004;Queralt et al 2008aQueralt et al , 2008bReynolds and Day 2007;Tresilian and Plooy 2006;Valls-Solé et al 1999). The effect is likely due to the fact that fully prepared motor programs are represented in subcortical structures and circuits that can be accessed by the SAS, and therefore they can be triggered with no need for cortical processing of cue-related sensory signals (Carlsen et al 2004;Valls-Solé et al 1999).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Preparedness for landing after a self-initiated fall

Castellote

Queralt

Valls‐Solé

2012

Journal of Neurophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Most predictive models of interception assume that an estimate of target timeto-contact (TTC) is compared with a preset threshold value () during target motion (Lee et al, 1983;Port et al, 1997;McIntyre et al, 2003;Zago et al, 2004;Senot et al, 2005;Tresilian and Plooy, 2006). When the threshold is reached, an interceptive program is executed generating a motor response after a time delay .…”

Section: Numerical Simulationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Intercepting a moving target at destination requires predictive timing of the motor responses to compensate for sensorimotor delays (Tresilian and Plooy, 2006;Zago et al, 2008). In primates, several brain regions contribute the necessary visual and motor information (Merchant et al, 2004;Indovina et al, 2005;Miller et al, 2008;Senot et al, 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contributions of the Human Temporoparietal Junction and MT/V5+ to the Timing of Interception Revealed by Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation

Bosco¹,

Carrozzo²,

Lacquaniti³

2008

J. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To intercept a fast target at destination, hand movements must be centrally triggered ahead of target arrival to compensate for neuromechanical delays. The role of visual-motion cortical areas is unclear. They likely feed downstream parietofrontal networks with signals reflecting target motion, but do they also contribute internal timing signals to trigger the motor response? We disrupted the activity of human temporoparietal junction (TPJ) and middle temporal area (hMT/V5ϩ) by means of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) while subjects pressed a button to intercept targets accelerated or decelerated in the vertical or horizontal direction. Target speed was randomized, making arrival time unpredictable across trials. We used either repetitive TMS (rTMS) before task execution or doublepulse TMS (dpTMS) during target motion. We found that after rTMS and dpTMS at 100 -200 ms from motion onset, but not after dpTMS at 300 -400 ms, the button-press responses occurred earlier than in the control, with time shifts independent of target speed. This suggests that activity in TPJ and hMT/V5ϩ can feed downstream regions not only with visual-motion information, but also with internal timing signals used for interception at destination. Moreover, we found that TMS of hMT/V5ϩ affected interception of all tested motion types, whereas TMS of TPJ significantly affected only interception of motion coherent with natural gravity. TPJ might specifically gate visual-motion information according to an internal model of the effects of gravity.

show abstract

Effects of acoustic startle stimuli on interceptive action

Cited by 41 publications

References 37 publications

Sound-evoked vestibular stimulation affects the anticipation of gravity effects during visual self-motion

Sound-evoked vestibular stimulation affects the anticipation of gravity effects during visual self-motion

Preparedness for landing after a self-initiated fall

Contributions of the Human Temporoparietal Junction and MT/V5+ to the Timing of Interception Revealed by Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About