Virtual reality-based sensorimotor adaptation shapes subsequent spontaneous and naturalistic stimulus-driven brain activity

Abstract

Our everyday life summons numerous novel sensorimotor experiences, to which our brain needs to adapt in order to function properly. However, tracking plasticity of naturalistic behavior and associated brain modulations is challenging. Here, we tackled this question implementing a prism adaptation-like training in virtual reality (VRPA) in combination with functional neuroimaging. Three groups of healthy participants (N = 45) underwent VRPA (with a shift either to the left/right side, or with no shift), and performed functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) sessions before and after training. To capture modulations in free-flowing, task-free brain activity, the fMRI sessions included resting-state and free-viewing of naturalistic videos. We found significant decreases in spontaneous functional connectivity between attentional and default mode (DMN)/fronto-parietal networks, only for the adaptation groups, more pronouncedly in the hemisphere contralateral to the induced shift. In addition, VRPA was found to bias visual responses to naturalistic videos: Following rightward adaptation, we found upregulation of visual response in an area in the parieto-occipital sulcus (POS) only in the right hemisphere. Notably, the extent of POS upregulation correlated with the size of the VRPA-induced after-effect measured in behavioral tests. This study demonstrates that a brief VRPA exposure can change large-scale cortical connectivity and correspondingly bias visual responses to naturalistic sensory inputs.

From real to virtual prism adaptation therapy: a systematic review on benefits and challenges of a new potential rehabilitation approach

“…The integration of VR with tools like fNIRS in studies by Wilf et al (2023) showed promising results, demonstrating that VR could effectively modify large-scale cortical connectivity and influence the processing of naturalistic stimuli.…”

“…The risk of bias in randomized controlled studies (RCT) was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk of bias (RoB 2) tool ( Sterne et al, 2019 ). All five studies report low risk of bias arising from the randomization process ( Bourgeois et al, 2021 ; Wilf et al, 2021 ; Bourgeois et al, 2022 ; Wähnert and Gerhards, 2022 ; Wilf et al, 2023 ). Only three studies show some concerns about the risk of bias due to deviations from intended intervention ( Bourgeois et al, 2021 ; Wilf et al, 2021 , 2023 ).…”

Sensorimotor adaptation in virtual reality: Do instructions and body representation influence aftereffects?

“…The sense of embodiment could also be important in the discussion of whether and to what extent sensorimotor adaptation differs between VR and reality. Studies show that visual displacement in VR leads to a similar adaptation (Wilf et al 2021(Wilf et al , 2023Cho et al 2022) and is influenced by similar factors (Gammeri et al 2020) as in prism adaptation. Wähnert and Gerhards (2022), for example, found empirical evidence that the positive relationship between the number of interactions during perturbation and the aftereffect, which is already known from prism experiments (Dewar 1970;Welch 1971;Fernández-Ruiz and Díaz 1999), can be generalised to VR.…”

Data_Sheet_1.pdf

“…All five studies report low risk of bias arising from the randomization process (Bourgeois et al, 2021;Wilf et al, 2021;Bourgeois et al, 2022;Wähnert and Gerhards, 2022;Wilf et al, 2023). Only three studies show some concerns about the risk of bias due to deviations from intended intervention (Bourgeois et al, 2021;Wilf et al, 2021Wilf et al, , 2023. A high risk of bias due to missing outcome data was reported in the study conducted by Wilf et al (2021).…”

“…The risk of bias in randomized controlled studies (RCT) was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk of bias (RoB 2) tool (Figure 3) (Sterne et al, 2019). All five studies report low risk of bias arising from the randomization process (Bourgeois et al, 2021;Wilf et al, 2021;Bourgeois et al, 2022;Wähnert and Gerhards, 2022;Wilf et al, 2023). Only three studies show some concerns about the risk of bias due to deviations from intended intervention (Bourgeois et al, 2021;Wilf et al, 2021Wilf et al, , 2023.…”