The adaptability of self-action perception and movement control when the limb is passively versus actively moved

Cameron, Brendan D.; Franks, Ian M.; Inglis, James; Chua, Romeo

doi:10.1016/j.concog.2010.11.006

Cited by 19 publications

(51 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The procedures used in the present study to assess proprioceptive and visual recalibration were different from various other procedures reported in the literature (e.g., Barkley et al., ; Cameron, Franks, Inglis, & Chua, ; Clayton et al., ; Cressman & Henriques, , ; Cressman, Salomonczyk, & Henriques, ; Izawa et al., ; Mostafa et al., , ; Nourouzpour et al., ; Salomonczyk et al., ; Simani et al., ; Synofzik et al., ; Van Beers et al., ; Zbib et al., ). Namely, our participants matched the perceived position of the exposed hand at the end of a center‐out movement (as a stimulus to be judged) by the position of the exposed hand on a circular path (as a reference).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 70%

Visual and proprioceptive recalibrations after exposure to a visuomotor rotation

Rand

Heuer

2019

Eur J of Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Adaptation to a visuomotor rotation in a cursor‐control task is accompanied by proprioceptive recalibration, whereas the existence of visual recalibration is uncertain and has even been doubted. In the present study, we tested both visual and proprioceptive recalibration; proprioceptive recalibration was not only assessed by means of psychophysical judgments of the perceived position of the hand, but also by an indirect procedure based on movement characteristics. Participants adapted to a gradually introduced visuomotor rotation of 30° by making center‐out movements to remembered targets. In subsequent test trials, they made center‐out movements without visual feedback or observed center‐out motions of a cursor without moving the hand. In each test trial, they judged the endpoint of hand or cursor by matching the position of the hand or of a visual marker, respectively, moving along a semicircular path. This path ran through all possible endpoints of the center‐out movements. We observed proprioceptive recalibration of 7.3° (3.1° with the indirect procedure) and a smaller, but significant, visual recalibration of 1.3°. Total recalibration of 8.6° was about half as strong as motor adaptation, the adaptive shift of the movement direction. The evidence of both proprioceptive and visual recalibration was obtained with a judgment procedure that suggests that recalibration is restricted to the type of movement performed during exposure to a visuomotor rotation. Consequently, identical physical positions of the hand can be perceived differently depending on how they have been reached, and similarly identical positions of a cursor on a monitor can be perceived differently.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 70%

Visual and proprioceptive recalibrations after exposure to a visuomotor rotation

Rand

Heuer

2019

Eur J of Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Non-visual afferents and efferents should both be present when testing hand location after self-generated 'active' movements, and robot-generated 'passive' movements should only allow afferent based proprioceptive hand localization. While using active and passive movements in a hand localization task allows assessing the relative contributions of afferent and efferent signals to state estimates (Cameron et al, 2012;'t Hart and Henriques, 2016;Modchalingam et al, 2019), both signals should be implicit.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

External error attribution dampens efferent-based predictions but not proprioceptive changes in hand localization

Gastrock

Modchalingam

Hart

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Motor learning and adaptation are guided by the attribution of errors to internal or external sources. When errors are clearly external, we should not update our internal models for movement or state estimation, i.e. there should be no implicit learning. However, measures of implicit learning are the same whether or not we induce explicit adaptation with instructions about the nature of the perturbation. Here we make errors even more clearly external by either demonstrating the rotation on every trial, or showing the hand itself throughout training. Implicit reach aftereffects persist, but are reduced in both groups. Only for the group viewing the hand, state estimates suggest that predicted sensory consequences are not updated, but only rely on recalibrated proprioception. Our results show that state estimation of the hand incorporates source attribution during motor learning, but recalibrated proprioception is an implicit process unaffected by external error attribution.

show abstract

“…Internal sensory predictions have been shown to subserve both perception [11], [54] and control of one’s actions [8], [9], [23]. Indeed, subjects’ average motor pointing direction in perceptual probe trials changed in a manner which compensated for the predicted change in the visual consequences of the pointing movements (compare Figure 6B, also see [24], [25]).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…Such changes will likewise produce prediction errors – unlike in the first case, however, these errors result not from external events, but from internal causes. In order to maintain a reliable distinction between externally and internally caused sensory afference, internal sensory predictions therefore need continuous recalibration [8], [9], [10], [11], [12] to compensate for internally caused prediction errors. Such recalibration constitutes a fundamental problem since internally and externally caused prediction errors do not differ per se.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sensorimotor Recalibration Depends on Attribution of Sensory Prediction Errors to Internal Causes

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sensorimotor learning critically depends on error signals. Learning usually tries to minimise these error signals to guarantee optimal performance. Errors can, however, have both internal causes, resulting from one’s sensorimotor system, and external causes, resulting from external disturbances. Does learning take into account the perceived cause of error information? Here, we investigated the recalibration of internal predictions about the sensory consequences of one’s actions. Since these predictions underlie the distinction of self- and externally produced sensory events, we assumed them to be recalibrated only by prediction errors attributed to internal causes. When subjects were confronted with experimentally induced visual prediction errors about their pointing movements in virtual reality, they recalibrated the predicted visual consequences of their movements. Recalibration was not proportional to the externally generated prediction error, but correlated with the error component which subjects attributed to internal causes. We also revealed adaptation in subjects’ motor performance which reflected their recalibrated sensory predictions. Thus, causal attribution of error information is essential for sensorimotor learning.

show abstract

The adaptability of self-action perception and movement control when the limb is passively versus actively moved

Cited by 19 publications

References 37 publications

Visual and proprioceptive recalibrations after exposure to a visuomotor rotation

Visual and proprioceptive recalibrations after exposure to a visuomotor rotation

External error attribution dampens efferent-based predictions but not proprioceptive changes in hand localization

Sensorimotor Recalibration Depends on Attribution of Sensory Prediction Errors to Internal Causes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About