Literature DB >> 25146571

Sensory integration during reaching: the effects of manipulating visual target availability.

Sajida Khanafer1, Erin K Cressman.   

Abstract

When using visual and proprioceptive information to plan a reach, it has been proposed that the brain combines these cues to estimate the object and/or limb's location. Specifically, according to the maximum-likelihood estimation (MLE) model, sensory inputs are combined such that more reliable inputs are assigned a greater weight (Ernst and Banks in Nature 415:429-433, 2002). In this paper, we examined if the brain is able to adjust which sensory cue it weights the most. Specifically, we asked if the brain changes how it weights sensory information when the availability of a visual cue is manipulated. Twelve healthy subjects reached to visual (V), proprioceptive (P), or visual + proprioceptive (VP) targets under different visual delay conditions (e.g., on V and VP trials, the visual target was available for the entire reach; it was removed with the go signal, or it was removed 1 s before the go signal). To establish which sensory cue subjects weighted the most, we compared endpoint positions achieved on V and P reaches to VP reaches. Results indicated that subjects combined visual and proprioceptive cues in accordance with the MLE model when reaching to VP targets. Moreover, subjects' reaching errors to visual targets increased with longer visual delays (particularly in the vertical direction). However, there was no change in reach variability with longer delays, and subjects did not reweight visual information as the availability of visual information was manipulated. Thus, a change in visual environment is not sufficient to cause the brain to reweight how it processes sensory information.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25146571     DOI: 10.1007/s00221-014-4064-0

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


  60 in total

1.  Proprioception does not quickly drift during visual occlusion.

Authors:  M Desmurget; P Vindras; H Gréa; P Viviani; S T Grafton
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  Memory for kinesthetically defined target location: evidence for manual asymmetries.

Authors:  C D Chapman; M D Heath; D A Westwood; E A Roy
Journal:  Brain Cogn       Date:  2001 Jun-Jul       Impact factor: 2.310

Review 3.  Merging the senses into a robust percept.

Authors:  Marc O Ernst; Heinrich H Bülthoff
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 20.229

4.  The effect of target modality on visual and proprioceptive contributions to the control of movement distance.

Authors:  Fabrice R Sarlegna; Robert L Sainburg
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 1.972

5.  Motor learning is optimally tuned to the properties of motor noise.

Authors:  Robert J van Beers
Journal:  Neuron       Date:  2009-08-13       Impact factor: 17.173

6.  Contribution of visual and proprioceptive information to the precision of reaching movements.

Authors:  Simona Monaco; Gregory Króliczak; Derek J Quinlan; Patrizia Fattori; Claudio Galletti; Melvyn A Goodale; Jody C Culham
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2009-12-06       Impact factor: 1.972

7.  The precision of proprioceptive position sense.

Authors:  R J van Beers; A C Sittig; J J Denier van der Gon
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 1.972

8.  Bimanual proprioception: are two hands better than one?

Authors:  Jeremy D Wong; Elizabeth T Wilson; Dinant A Kistemaker; Paul L Gribble
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2013-12-31       Impact factor: 2.714

9.  Optimal integration of visual and proprioceptive movement information for the perception of trajectory geometry.

Authors:  Johanna Reuschel; Knut Drewing; Denise Y P Henriques; Frank Rösler; Katja Fiehler
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2009-12-02       Impact factor: 1.972

10.  Multi-sensory weights depend on contextual noise in reference frame transformations.

Authors:  Jessica Katherine Burns; Gunnar Blohm
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2010-12-07       Impact factor: 3.169

View more
  1 in total

1.  Adaptation to proprioceptive targets following visuomotor adaptation.

Authors:  Jenna C Flannigan; Ruth J Posthuma; Jesse N Lombardo; Chelsea Murray; Erin K Cressman
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2017-12-05       Impact factor: 1.972

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.