Proprioception plays a different role for sensorimotor adaptation to different distortions

Bock, Otmar; Thomas, Monika

doi:10.1016/j.humov.2010.10.007

Cited by 25 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This result lies in accordance with [34], where subjects exposed to a visual viscous perturbation showed adaptation in the first portion of the reach. On the other hand, the second half of the reach revealed no reduction of the position error in the reaches following direct effect.…”

Section: Adaptationsupporting

confidence: 92%

Effects of Kinesthetic and Cutaneous Stimulation During the Learning of a Viscous Force Field

Rosati

Oscari

Pacchierotti

et al. 2014

IEEE Trans. Haptics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Haptic stimulation can help humans learn perceptual motor skills, but the precise way in which it influences the learning process has not yet been clarified. This study investigates the role of the kinesthetic and cutaneous components of haptic feedback during the learning of a viscous curl field, taking also into account the influence of visual feedback. We present the results of an experiment in which 17 subjects were asked to make reaching movements while grasping a joystick and wearing a pair of cutaneous devices. Each device was able to provide cutaneous contact forces through a moving platform. The subjects received visual feedback about joystick's position. During the experiment, the system delivered a perturbation through (1) full haptic stimulation, (2) kinesthetic stimulation alone, (3) cutaneous stimulation alone, (4) altered visual feedback, or (5) altered visual feedback plus cutaneous stimulation. Conditions 1, 2, and 3 were also tested with the cancellation of the visual feedback of position error. Results indicate that kinesthetic stimuli played a primary role during motor adaptation to the viscous field, which is a fundamental premise to motor learning and rehabilitation. On the other hand, cutaneous stimulation alone appeared not to bring significant direct or adaptation effects, although it helped in reducing direct effects when used in addition to kinesthetic stimulation. The experimental conditions with visual cancellation of position error showed slower adaptation rates, indicating that visual feedback actively contributes to the formation of internal models. However, modest learning effects were detected when the visual information was used to render the viscous field.

show abstract

Section: Adaptationsupporting

confidence: 92%

Effects of Kinesthetic and Cutaneous Stimulation During the Learning of a Viscous Force Field

Rosati

Oscari

Pacchierotti

et al. 2014

IEEE Trans. Haptics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…If discrepancy is relevant, in a visuomotor perturbation paradigm the degradation of proprioception should encourage learning from visual errors. However, degradation of proprioception appears not to affect adaptation in a visuomotor rotation paradigm (Bock and Thomas 2011;Pipereit et al 2006). Both of these results seem to support the idea that visual and proprioceptive errors are processed independently.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…The most commonly used adaptation paradigms rely on visual error alone (i.e., a visuomotor rotation) or visual and proprioceptive error concurrently (i.e., a force field). Behavioral studies suggest that learning from visual and proprioceptive errors may occur independently (Bock and Thomas 2011;Krakauer et al 1999;Pipereit et al 2006). Furthermore, a recent study of people with cerebellar damage demonstrated that adaptation in these two paradigms relied on different regions of the cerebellum (Donchin et al 2012;Rabe et al 2009).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Sensitivity to prediction error in reach adaptation

Marko¹,

Haith²,

Harran³

et al. 2012

Journal of Neurophysiology

122

128

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It has been proposed that the brain predicts the sensory consequences of a movement and compares it to the actual sensory feedback. When the two differ, an error signal is formed, driving adaptation. How does an error in one trial alter performance in the subsequent trial? Here we show that the sensitivity to error is not constant but declines as a function of error magnitude. That is, one learns relatively less from large errors compared with small errors. We performed an experiment in which humans made reaching movements and randomly experienced an error in both their visual and proprioceptive feedback. Proprioceptive errors were created with force fields, and visual errors were formed by perturbing the cursor trajectory to create a visual error that was smaller, the same size, or larger than the proprioceptive error. We measured single-trial adaptation and calculated sensitivity to error, i.e., the ratio of the trial-to-trial change in motor commands to error size. We found that for both sensory modalities sensitivity decreased with increasing error size. A reanalysis of a number of previously published psychophysical results also exhibited this feature. Finally, we asked how the brain might encode sensitivity to error. We reanalyzed previously published probabilities of cerebellar complex spikes (CSs) and found that this probability declined with increasing error size. From this we posit that a CS may be representative of the sensitivity to error, and not error itself, a hypothesis that may explain conflicting reports about CSs and their relationship to error.

show abstract

“…For example, deafferented individuals have been shown to adapt their reaches in response to altered visual feedback of the hand (Bernier et al 2006;Ingram et al 2000;Miall and Cole 2007). As well, it has recently been demonstrated that healthy subjects adapt their reaches in response to a visuomotor distortion even when proprioceptive feedback is degraded by agonist-antagonist muscle vibration (Bock and Thomas 2011;Pipereit et al 2006). In fact, Bernier and colleagues (2009) showed that when proprioceptive input is intact, healthy subjects attenuate this input (as measured by median nerve somatosensory evoked potentials) in the primary somatosensory cortex upon exposure to misaligned visual feedback of the hand.…”

Section: Motor Adaptation Vs Sensory Recalibrationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Generalization patterns for reach adaptation and proprioceptive recalibration differ after visuomotor learning

Cressman

Henriques

2015

Journal of Neurophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Proprioception plays a different role for sensorimotor adaptation to different distortions

Cited by 25 publications

References 25 publications

Effects of Kinesthetic and Cutaneous Stimulation During the Learning of a Viscous Force Field

Effects of Kinesthetic and Cutaneous Stimulation During the Learning of a Viscous Force Field

Sensitivity to prediction error in reach adaptation

Generalization patterns for reach adaptation and proprioceptive recalibration differ after visuomotor learning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About