Literature DB >> 27760821

Does the sensorimotor system minimize prediction error or select the most likely prediction during object lifting?

Joshua G A Cashaback1, Heather R McGregor2,3, Henry C H Pun4, Gavin Buckingham5, Paul L Gribble2,4.   

Abstract

The human sensorimotor system is routinely capable of making accurate predictions about an object's weight, which allows for energetically efficient lifts and prevents objects from being dropped. Often, however, poor predictions arise when the weight of an object can vary and sensory cues about object weight are sparse (e.g., picking up an opaque water bottle). The question arises, what strategies does the sensorimotor system use to make weight predictions when one is dealing with an object whose weight may vary? For example, does the sensorimotor system use a strategy that minimizes prediction error (minimal squared error) or one that selects the weight that is most likely to be correct (maximum a posteriori)? In this study we dissociated the predictions of these two strategies by having participants lift an object whose weight varied according to a skewed probability distribution. We found, using a small range of weight uncertainty, that four indexes of sensorimotor prediction (grip force rate, grip force, load force rate, and load force) were consistent with a feedforward strategy that minimizes the square of prediction errors. These findings match research in the visuomotor system, suggesting parallels in underlying processes. We interpret our findings within a Bayesian framework and discuss the potential benefits of using a minimal squared error strategy. NEW & NOTEWORTHY: Using a novel experimental model of object lifting, we tested whether the sensorimotor system models the weight of objects by minimizing lifting errors or by selecting the statistically most likely weight. We found that the sensorimotor system minimizes the square of prediction errors for object lifting. This parallels the results of studies that investigated visually guided reaching, suggesting an overlap in the underlying mechanisms between tasks that involve different sensory systems.
Copyright © 2017 the American Physiological Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bayesian; feedforward control; fingertip force; object lifting; prediction

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27760821      PMCID: PMC5220115          DOI: 10.1152/jn.00609.2016

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurophysiol        ISSN: 0022-3077            Impact factor:   2.714


  55 in total

1.  Bayesian integration in sensorimotor learning.

Authors:  Konrad P Körding; Daniel M Wolpert
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2004-01-15       Impact factor: 49.962

2.  Visual size cues in the programming of manipulative forces during precision grip.

Authors:  A M Gordon; H Forssberg; R S Johansson; G Westling
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  1991       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  The integration of haptically acquired size information in the programming of precision grip.

Authors:  A M Gordon; H Forssberg; R S Johansson; G Westling
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  1991       Impact factor: 1.972

4.  The role of vision in detecting and correcting fingertip force errors during object lifting.

Authors:  Gavin Buckingham; Nathalie S Ranger; Melvyn A Goodale
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2011-01-04       Impact factor: 2.240

5.  Bayesian inference with probabilistic population codes.

Authors:  Wei Ji Ma; Jeffrey M Beck; Peter E Latham; Alexandre Pouget
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2006-10-22       Impact factor: 24.884

6.  Probabilistic information on object weight shapes force dynamics in a grip-lift task.

Authors:  Leif Trampenau; Johann P Kuhtz-Buschbeck; Thilo van Eimeren
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2015-03-12       Impact factor: 1.972

Review 7.  Probabilistic brains: knowns and unknowns.

Authors:  Alexandre Pouget; Jeffrey M Beck; Wei Ji Ma; Peter E Latham
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2013-08-18       Impact factor: 24.884

8.  Lifting without seeing: the role of vision in perceiving and acting upon the size weight illusion.

Authors:  Gavin Buckingham; Melvyn A Goodale
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2010-03-15       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 9.  Noise in the nervous system.

Authors:  A Aldo Faisal; Luc P J Selen; Daniel M Wolpert
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurosci       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 34.870

10.  Human representation of visuo-motor uncertainty as mixtures of orthogonal basis distributions.

Authors:  Hang Zhang; Nathaniel D Daw; Laurence T Maloney
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2015-06-29       Impact factor: 24.884

View more
  7 in total

1.  The sensorimotor system minimizes prediction error for object lifting when the object's weight is uncertain.

Authors:  Jack Brooks; Anne Thaler
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2017-04-19       Impact factor: 2.714

2.  Preserved Object Weight Processing after Bilateral Lateral Occipital Complex Lesions.

Authors:  Gavin Buckingham; Desiree Holler; Elizabeth E Michelakakis; Jacqueline C Snow
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2018-07-19       Impact factor: 3.225

3.  Humans utilize sensory evidence of others' intended action to make online decisions.

Authors:  Rakshith Lokesh; Seth Sullivan; Jan A Calalo; Adam Roth; Brenden Swanik; Michael J Carter; Joshua G A Cashaback
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-05-25       Impact factor: 4.996

4.  Dissociating error-based and reinforcement-based loss functions during sensorimotor learning.

Authors:  Joshua G A Cashaback; Heather R McGregor; Ayman Mohatarem; Paul L Gribble
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2017-07-28       Impact factor: 4.475

5.  Grip Force Adjustments Reflect Prediction of Dynamic Consequences in Varying Gravitoinertial Fields.

Authors:  Olivier White; Jean-Louis Thonnard; Philippe Lefèvre; Joachim Hermsdörfer
Journal:  Front Physiol       Date:  2018-02-23       Impact factor: 4.566

6.  The gradient of the reinforcement landscape influences sensorimotor learning.

Authors:  Joshua G A Cashaback; Christopher K Lao; Dimitrios J Palidis; Susan K Coltman; Heather R McGregor; Paul L Gribble
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2019-03-04       Impact factor: 4.475

7.  Anticipatory action planning for stepping onto competing potential targets.

Authors:  Ryo Watanabe; Takahiro Higuchi
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2022-08-22       Impact factor: 3.473

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.