Literature DB >> 25479737

Generalization of reach adaptation and proprioceptive recalibration at different distances in the workspace.

Ahmed A Mostafa1, Rozbeh Kamran-Disfani, Golsa Bahari-Kashani, Erin K Cressman, Denise Y P Henriques.   

Abstract

Studies have shown that adapting one's reaches in one location in the workspace can generalize to other novel locations. Generalization of this visuomotor adaptation is influenced by the location of novel targets relative to the trained location such that reaches made to novel targets that are located far from the trained target direction (i.e., ~22.5°; Krakauer et al. in J Neurosci 20:8916-8924, 2000) show very little generalization compared to those that are closer to the trained direction. However, generalization is much broader when reaching to novel targets in the same direction but at different distances from the trained target. In this study, we investigated whether changes in hand proprioception (proprioceptive recalibration), like reach adaptation, generalize to different distances of the workspace. Subjects adapted their reaches with a rotated cursor to two target locations at a distance of 13 cm from the home position. We then compared changes in open-loop reaches and felt hand position at these trained locations to novel targets located in the same direction as the trained targets but either at a closer (10 cm) or at a farther distance (15 cm) from the home position. We found reach adaptation generalized to novel closer and farther targets to the same extent as observed at the trained target distance. In contrast, while changes in felt hand position were significant across the two novel distances, this recalibration was smaller for the novel-far locations compared to the trained location. Given that reach adaptation completely generalized across the novel distances but proprioceptive recalibration generalized to a lesser extent for farther distances, we suggest that proprioceptive recalibration may arise independently of motor adaptation and vice versa.

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25479737     DOI: 10.1007/s00221-014-4157-9

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


  38 in total

1.  Independent learning of internal models for kinematic and dynamic control of reaching.

Authors:  J W Krakauer; M F Ghilardi; C Ghez
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 24.884

2.  Evidence for an eye-centered spherical representation of the visuomotor map.

Authors:  P Vetter; S J Goodbody; D M Wolpert
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 2.714

3.  Generalization of dynamics learning across changes in movement amplitude.

Authors:  Andrew A G Mattar; David J Ostry
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2010-05-12       Impact factor: 2.714

4.  Generalization to local remappings of the visuomotor coordinate transformation.

Authors:  Z Ghahramani; D M Wolpert; M I Jordan
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  1996-11-01       Impact factor: 6.167

5.  Proprioception plays a different role for sensorimotor adaptation to different distortions.

Authors:  Otmar Bock; Monika Thomas
Journal:  Hum Mov Sci       Date:  2011-01-21       Impact factor: 2.161

6.  Generalization patterns for reach adaptation and proprioceptive recalibration differ after visuomotor learning.

Authors:  Erin K Cressman; Denise Y P Henriques
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2015-05-13       Impact factor: 2.714

7.  Learning not to generalize: modular adaptation of visuomotor gain.

Authors:  Toni S Pearson; John W Krakauer; Pietro Mazzoni
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2010-03-31       Impact factor: 2.714

Review 8.  Visuomotor adaptation and proprioceptive recalibration.

Authors:  Denise Y P Henriques; Erin K Cressman
Journal:  J Mot Behav       Date:  2012       Impact factor: 1.328

9.  Motor learning and its sensory effects: time course of perceptual change and its presence with gradual introduction of load.

Authors:  Andrew A G Mattar; Mohammad Darainy; David J Ostry
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2012-11-07       Impact factor: 2.714

10.  The cerebellum updates predictions about the visual consequences of one's behavior.

Authors:  Matthis Synofzik; Axel Lindner; Peter Thier
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2008-06-03       Impact factor: 10.834

View more
  10 in total

1.  Generalization patterns for reach adaptation and proprioceptive recalibration differ after visuomotor learning.

Authors:  Erin K Cressman; Denise Y P Henriques
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2015-05-13       Impact factor: 2.714

2.  Movement and perception recalibrate differently across multiple days of locomotor learning.

Authors:  Kristan A Leech; Kevin A Day; Ryan T Roemmich; Amy J Bastian
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2018-09-05       Impact factor: 2.714

3.  Proprioceptive recalibration arises slowly compared to reach adaptation.

Authors:  Basel Zbib; Denise Y P Henriques; Erin K Cressman
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2016-03-25       Impact factor: 1.972

Review 4.  Sensory Plasticity in Human Motor Learning.

Authors:  David J Ostry; Paul L Gribble
Journal:  Trends Neurosci       Date:  2016-01-13       Impact factor: 13.837

5.  Making Sense of Cerebellar Contributions to Perceptual and Motor Adaptation.

Authors:  Matthew A Statton; Alejandro Vazquez; Susanne M Morton; Erin V L Vasudevan; Amy J Bastian
Journal:  Cerebellum       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 3.648

6.  Motor learning without moving: Proprioceptive and predictive hand localization after passive visuoproprioceptive discrepancy training.

Authors:  Ahmed A Mostafa; Bernard Marius 't Hart; Denise Y P Henriques
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-08-29       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Understanding implicit sensorimotor adaptation as a process of proprioceptive re-alignment.

Authors:  Jonathan S Tsay; Hyosub Kim; Adrian M Haith; Richard B Ivry
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2022-08-15       Impact factor: 8.713

8.  Separating Predicted and Perceived Sensory Consequences of Motor Learning.

Authors:  Bernard Marius 't Hart; Denise Y P Henriques
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-09-22       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  The effect of age on visuomotor learning processes.

Authors:  Chad Michael Vachon; Shanaathanan Modchalingam; Bernard Marius 't Hart; Denise Y P Henriques
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-09-14       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Split-Belt walking induces changes in active, but not passive, perception of step length.

Authors:  Carly Sombric; Marcela Gonzalez-Rubio; Gelsy Torres-Oviedo
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-11-11       Impact factor: 4.379

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.