Two Eyes for an Eye: The Neuroscience of Force Escalation

Shergill, Sukhwinder S.; Bays, Paul M.; Frith, C. D.; Wolpert, Daniel M.

doi:10.1126/science.1085327

Cited by 341 publications

(322 citation statements)

References 11 publications

(4 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

291

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Taken together, these results suggest that the dominant hand tends to overestimate the forces of the non-dominant hand, and the nondominant hand tends to match the forces of the dominant hand in contralateral tasks. Our results of handedness effect on force matching are in general agreement with previous studies (Gordon et al 1994;Henningsen et al 1995;Shergill et al 2003). For example, when a brief constant force is applied to the left index fingertip and the perceived force is estimated by the right index finger, the right index finger consistently overestimates the left index finger force (Shergill et al 2003).…”

Section: Handedness Effect On Finger Force Perception In Contralaterasupporting

confidence: 92%

“…Our results of handedness effect on force matching are in general agreement with previous studies (Gordon et al 1994;Henningsen et al 1995;Shergill et al 2003). For example, when a brief constant force is applied to the left index fingertip and the perceived force is estimated by the right index finger, the right index finger consistently overestimates the left index finger force (Shergill et al 2003). When acting in alternative turns, force escalation is subsequently observed.…”

Section: Handedness Effect On Finger Force Perception In Contralaterasupporting

confidence: 91%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Finger force perception during ipsilateral and contralateral force matching tasks

Park

Leonard

2008

Exp Brain Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aims of the present study were to compare matching performance between ipsilateral and contralateral finger force matching tasks and to examine the effect of handedness on finger force perception. Eleven subjects were instructed to produce reference forces by an instructed finger (index -I or little -L finger) and to reproduce the same amount force by the same or a different finger within the hand (i.e., ipsilateral matching task), or by a finger of the other hand (i.e., contralateral matching task). The results of the ipsilateral and contralateral tasks in the present study commonly showed that 1) the reference and matching forces were matched closely when the two forces were produced by the same or homologous finger(s) such as I/I task; 2) the weaker little finger underestimated the magnitude of reference force of the index finger (I/L task), even with the higher level of effort (relative force), but the two forces were matched when considering total finger forces; 3) the stronger index finger closely matched the reference force of the little finger with the lower level of relative force (i.e., L/I task); 4) when considering the constant errors, I/L tasks showed an underestimation and L/I tasks showed an overestimation compared to I/I tasks. There was no handedness effect during ipsilateral tasks. During the contralateral task, the dominant hand overestimated the force of the non-dominant hand, while the non-dominant hand attempted to match the absolute force of the dominant hand. The overall results support the notion that the absolute, rather than relative, finger force is perceived and reproduced during ipsilateral and contralateral finger force matching tasks, indicating the uniqueness of finger force perception.

show abstract

Section: Handedness Effect On Finger Force Perception In Contralaterasupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Handedness Effect On Finger Force Perception In Contralaterasupporting

confidence: 91%

Finger force perception during ipsilateral and contralateral force matching tasks

Park

Leonard

2008

Exp Brain Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the two conditions without rubber hands, participants pressed their right index finger against a force sensor placed either directly above (but not in contact with) the left index finger (real0cm; Fig. 1A), thereby producing somatosensory attenuation by simulating real self-touch (20), or 25 cm to the right of the left index finger (real25cm; Fig. 1B)-a large distance that eliminates attenuation (30) because physical contact of the fingers is very unlikely.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the somatosensory domain, this is reflected in the fact that when one actively touches his/her own body (self-touch), the touch feels less intense (and less ticklish) compared with an identical touch applied by another person or a machine (16)(17)(18)(19). Somatosensory attenuation can be effectively studied using the classical force-matching paradigm, which allows a psychophysical quantification of the degree of attenuation introduced by a simulated self-touch between the index fingers by means of a motor (20)(21)(22)(23). The mechanism of sensory attenuation has been theorized to arise as a consequence of basic mechanisms of motor control.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Body ownership determines the attenuation of self-generated tactile sensations

Kilteni

Ehrsson

2017

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

120

122

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Self-perception depends on the brain's abilities to differentiate our body from the environment and to distinguish between the sensations generated as a consequence of voluntary movement and those arising from events in the external world. The first process refers to the sense of ownership of our body and relies on the dynamic integration of multisensory (afferent) signals. The second process depends on internal forward models that use (efferent) information from our motor commands to predict and attenuate the sensory consequences of our movements. However, the relationship between body ownership and sensory attenuation driven by the forward models remains unknown. To address this issue, we combined the rubber hand illusion, which allows experimental manipulation of body ownership, and the force-matching paradigm, which allows psychophysical quantification of somatosensory attenuation. We found that a rubber right hand pressing on the left index finger produced somatosensory attenuation but only when the model hand felt like one's own (illusory selftouch); reversely, the attenuation that was expected to occur during actual self-touch with the real hands was reduced when the participants simultaneously experienced ownership of a rubber right hand that was placed at a distance from their left hand. These results demonstrate that the sense of body ownership determines somatosensory attenuation. From a theoretical perspective, our results are important because they suggest that body ownership updates the internal representation of body state that provides the input to the forward model generating sensory predictions during voluntary action.sensory attenuation | body ownership | forward models | state estimation | predictive motor control T he distinction between self and nonself is fundamental for all biological organisms. External signals constitute potential threats and must be clearly distinguished from self-related signals. Imagine, for example, how dangerous it would be if you could not distinguish between a spider crawling up your neck and your own fingers scratching the same part of the skin. The central nervous system has therefore developed mechanisms to distinguish between self-related signals and non-self-related signals. Two neural mechanisms are considered particularly important for this differentiation. First, the integration of signals from different sensory modalities (e.g., vision, touch, proprioception; multisensory integration) leads to the formation of a central representation of one's own body in space (1, 2). Sensory information attributed to this representation is experienced as originating from one's own body (sense of body ownership). Second, when we actively move our body, the brain predicts the sensory consequences of the movements by using internal copies of the voluntary motor commands (efference copy) (3-5). This allows the central nervous system to disambiguate self-produced sensations from sensations arising from external causes. However, the relationship between these two basic self-...

show abstract

“…They begin with the observation that tactile stimulation produced by one's own movements are less intense than those produced by the same movement but done by another person (see for example Bays, Wolpert, et al, 2005;Shergill, Bays, et al, 2003). That is, one cannot tickle oneself (Claxton, 1975;Weiskrantz, Elliot, et al, 1971).…”

Section: Self Ticklingmentioning

confidence: 99%

The case for the comparator model as an explanation of the sense of agency and its breakdowns

Carruthers

2012

Consciousness and Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c t I compare Frith and colleagues' influential comparator account of how the sense of agency is elicited to the multifactorial weighting model advocated by Synofzik and colleagues. I defend the comparator model from the common objection that the actual sensory consequences of action are not needed to elicit the sense of agency. I examine the comparator model's ability to explain the performance of healthy subjects and those suffering from delusions of alien control on various self-attribution tasks. It transpires that the comparator model needs case-by-case adjustment to deal with problematic data. In response to this, the multifactorial weighting model of Synofzik and colleagues is introduced. Although this model is incomplete, it is more naturally constrained by the cases that are problematic for the comparator model. However, this model may be untestable. I conclude that currently the comparator model approach has stronger support than the multifactorial weighting model approach.

show abstract

Two Eyes for an Eye: The Neuroscience of Force Escalation

Cited by 341 publications

References 11 publications

Finger force perception during ipsilateral and contralateral force matching tasks

Finger force perception during ipsilateral and contralateral force matching tasks

Body ownership determines the attenuation of self-generated tactile sensations

The case for the comparator model as an explanation of the sense of agency and its breakdowns

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About