How humans combine simultaneous proprioceptive and visual position information

Abstract

To enable us to study how humans combine simultaneously present visual and proprioceptive position information, we had subjects perform a matching task. Seated at a table, they placed their left hand under the table concealing it from their gaze. They then had to match the proprioceptively perceived position of the left hand using only proprioceptive, only visual or both proprioceptive and visual information. We analysed the variance of the indicated positions in the various conditions. We compared the results with the predictions of a model in which simultaneously present visual and proprioceptive position information about the same object is integrated in the most effective way. The results are in disagreement with the model: the variance of the condition with both visual and proprioceptive information is smaller than expected from the variances of the other conditions. This means that the available information was integrated in a highly effective way. Furthermore, the results suggest that additional information was used. This information might have been visual information about body parts other than the fingertip or it might have been visual information about the environment.

The perceived position of the hand in space

“…Inspection of each condition's scores on this variate showed that the greatest difference was between the P:P condition (score = 1.74, SD = 0.40) and both the V:P and VP:P conditions (scores = 1.27, SD = 0.32, and 0.99, SD = 0.27, respectively), though all pairwise comparisons were significant beyond the .05 level in protected post hoc tests. First, this result clearly replicates the findings ofWann (1991), von Hofsten andRosblad (1988), andvan Beers et al (1996) regarding the ordering of matching performance in the three conditions. VP:P shows the best performance, followed by V:P, followed by P:P. Second, the use of discriminant analysis shows that the differences between these conditions are primarily in the variable error in the X dimension.…”

“…These results were interpreted as evidence for sensorimotor integration, whereby a combined visual and proprioceptive representation oflocation in egocentric space is superior to a representation using just one of those modalities. Van Beers, Sittig, and Denier van der Gon (1996) found that the variable error of performance in a VP:P condition was smaller than expected from the variances of V:P and P:P performance, again suggesting integration. Additional studies (Baud-Bovy & Viviani, 1998;Helms-Tillery, Flanders, & Soechting, 1991 have focused specifically on proprioceptive representation but have used a memoryguided task in which the hand is replaced in a recently occupied location.…”

Multisensory uncertainty reduction for hand localization in children and adults.

“…This is the first evidence, to our knowledge, for a statistically significant improvement in hand localization ability in childhood when proprioception is added to vision von Hofsten & Rosblad, 1988;van Beers et al, 1996;King et al, 2010). The improvement was modest, and the present study may have been able to measure it because we used a relatively large number of trials per condition, and estimated distributions of points using a robust procedure (Rousseeuw, 1984).…”

Retention of proprioceptive recalibration following visuomotor adaptation

“…The way this sensory input is processed depends on the demands of the motor task at hand; van Beers and colleagues (1999) have shown that motor performance is improved when one has access to information from multiple sensory modalities regarding limb position, when compared to information from only one source. Depending on the stage of movement planning Sabes 2003, 2005), target position (van Beers et al 1996(van Beers et al , 1998(van Beers et al , 1999, and target modality (Sober and Sabes 2005), the brain can select different combinations of sensory input (i.e. vision, proprioception) to localize one's hand.…”