Literature DB >> 20383763

Reach adaptation to explicit vs. implicit target error.

Brendan D Cameron1, Ian M Franks, J Timothy Inglis, Romeo Chua.   

Abstract

The adaptation of reaching movements has typically been investigated by either distorting visual feedback of the reaching limb or by distorting the forces acting upon the reaching limb. Here, we investigate reach adaptation when error is created by systematically perturbing the target of the reach rather than the limb itself (Magescas and Prablanc in J Cogn Neurosci 18: 75-83, 2006). Specifically, we investigate how adaptation is affected by (1) the timing of the perturbation with respect to the movement of the eye and the hand and (2) participant awareness of the perturbation. In Experiment 1, participants looked and pointed to a target that disappeared either at the onset of their eye movement or shortly after their eye movement and then reappeared, displaced to the right, at the completion of the reach. In Experiment 2, we made the target displacement more explicit by leaving the target at its initial location until the end of the reach, at which point it was displaced to the right. In Experiment 3, we extinguished the target at the onset of the eye movement but also informed participants about the presence and magnitude of the perturbation. In the no-feedback post-test phase, participants for whom the target disappeared during the reach demonstrated much stronger aftereffects of the perturbation, misreaching to the right, whereas participants for whom the target stayed on until reach completion demonstrated rapid extinction of rightward misreaching. Furthermore, participants who were informed about the target perturbation exhibited faster de-adaptation than those who were not. Our results suggest that adaptation to a target displacement is contingent on the explicitness of the target perturbation, whether this is achieved by manipulating stimulus timing or instruction.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20383763     DOI: 10.1007/s00221-010-2239-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Exp Brain Res        ISSN: 0014-4819            Impact factor:   1.972


  26 in total

Review 1.  Applications of prism adaptation: a tutorial in theory and method.

Authors:  Gordon M Redding; Yves Rossetti; Benjamin Wallace
Journal:  Neurosci Biobehav Rev       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 8.989

2.  An implicit plan overrides an explicit strategy during visuomotor adaptation.

Authors:  Pietro Mazzoni; John W Krakauer
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2006-04-05       Impact factor: 6.167

3.  Sensory prediction errors drive cerebellum-dependent adaptation of reaching.

Authors:  Ya-Weng Tseng; Jörn Diedrichsen; John W Krakauer; Reza Shadmehr; Amy J Bastian
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2007-05-16       Impact factor: 2.714

4.  Dynamic changes in brain activity during prism adaptation.

Authors:  Jacques Luauté; Sophie Schwartz; Yves Rossetti; Mona Spiridon; Gilles Rode; Dominique Boisson; Patrik Vuilleumier
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2009-01-07       Impact factor: 6.167

5.  Postsaccadic target blanking prevents saccadic suppression of image displacement.

Authors:  H Deubel; W X Schneider; B Bridgeman
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1996-04       Impact factor: 1.886

6.  Large adjustments in visually guided reaching do not depend on vision of the hand or perception of target displacement.

Authors:  M A Goodale; D Pelisson; C Prablanc
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1986 Apr 24-30       Impact factor: 49.962

7.  Visual control of reaching movements without vision of the limb. II. Evidence of fast unconscious processes correcting the trajectory of the hand to the final position of a double-step stimulus.

Authors:  D Pélisson; C Prablanc; M A Goodale; M Jeannerod
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  1986       Impact factor: 1.972

8.  Avoiding moving obstacles.

Authors:  M Pilar Aivar; Eli Brenner; Jeroen B J Smeets
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2008-07-16       Impact factor: 1.972

9.  Preserved prism adaptation in bilateral optic ataxia: strategic versus adaptive reaction to prisms.

Authors:  L Pisella; C Michel; H Gréa; C Tilikete; A Vighetto; Y Rossetti
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2004-05-05       Impact factor: 1.972

10.  Interacting adaptive processes with different timescales underlie short-term motor learning.

Authors:  Maurice A Smith; Ali Ghazizadeh; Reza Shadmehr
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2006-05-23       Impact factor: 8.029

View more
  9 in total

1.  Implicit motor learning from target error during explicit reach control.

Authors:  Brendan D Cameron; Ian M Franks; J Timothy Inglis; Romeo Chua
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2010-09-04       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  Saccadic-like visuomotor adaptation involves little if any perceptual effects.

Authors:  Damien Laurent; Olivier Sillan; Claude Prablanc
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2011-08-18       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  A spatial explicit strategy reduces error but interferes with sensorimotor adaptation.

Authors:  Bryan L Benson; Joaquin A Anguera; Rachael D Seidler
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2011-03-30       Impact factor: 2.714

4.  Reach adaptation to online target error.

Authors:  Brendan D Cameron; Ian M Franks; J Timothy Inglis; Romeo Chua
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2011-01-26       Impact factor: 1.972

5.  Asymmetric generalization in adaptation to target displacement errors in humans and in a neural network model.

Authors:  Stephanie Westendorff; Shenbing Kuang; Bahareh Taghizadeh; Opher Donchin; Alexander Gail
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2015-01-21       Impact factor: 2.714

6.  The influence of task outcome on implicit motor learning.

Authors:  Hyosub E Kim; Darius E Parvin; Richard B Ivry
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2019-04-29       Impact factor: 8.140

Review 7.  The Errors of Our Ways: Understanding Error Representations in Cerebellar-Dependent Motor Learning.

Authors:  Laurentiu S Popa; Martha L Streng; Angela L Hewitt; Timothy J Ebner
Journal:  Cerebellum       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 3.847

8.  Explicit knowledge and real-time action control: anticipating a change does not make us respond more quickly.

Authors:  Brendan D Cameron; Darian T Cheng; Romeo Chua; Paul van Donkelaar; Gordon Binsted
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2013-01-18       Impact factor: 1.972

9.  Interactions between sensory prediction error and task error during implicit motor learning.

Authors:  Jonathan S Tsay; Adrian M Haith; Richard B Ivry; Hyosub E Kim
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2022-03-23       Impact factor: 4.779

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.