Literature DB >> 30640373

Did I do that? Detecting a perturbation to visual feedback in a reaching task.

Elon Gaffin-Cahn1, Todd E Hudson2, Michael S Landy3.   

Abstract

The motor system executes actions in a highly stereotyped manner despite the high number of degrees of freedom available. Studies of motor adaptation leverage this fact by disrupting, or perturbing, visual feedback to measure how the motor system compensates. To elicit detectable effects, perturbations are often large compared to trial-to-trial reach endpoint variability. However, awareness of large perturbations can elicit qualitatively different compensation processes than unnoticeable ones can. The current experiment measures the perturbation detection threshold, and investigates how humans combine proprioception and vision to decide whether displayed reach endpoint errors are self-generated only, or are due to experimenter-imposed perturbation. We scaled or rotated the position of the visual feedback of center-out reaches to targets and asked subjects to indicate whether visual feedback was perturbed. Subjects detected perturbations when they were at least 1.5 times the standard deviation of trial-to-trial endpoint variability. In contrast to previous studies, subjects suboptimally combined vision and proprioception. Instead of using proprioceptive input, they responded based on the final (possibly perturbed) visual feedback. These results inform methodology in motor system experimentation, and more broadly highlight the ability to attribute errors to one's own motor output and combine visual and proprioceptive feedback to make decisions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30640373      PMCID: PMC6334820          DOI: 10.1167/19.1.5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Vis        ISSN: 1534-7362            Impact factor:   2.240


  47 in total

1.  Is interlimb transfer of force-field adaptation a cognitive response to the sudden introduction of load?

Authors:  Nicole Malfait; David J Ostry
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2004-09-15       Impact factor: 6.167

2.  Dissociating the roles of the cerebellum and motor cortex during adaptive learning: the motor cortex retains what the cerebellum learns.

Authors:  Joseph M Galea; Alejandro Vazquez; Neel Pasricha; Jean-Jacques Orban de Xivry; Pablo Celnik
Journal:  Cereb Cortex       Date:  2010-12-07       Impact factor: 5.357

3.  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

4.  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

5.  The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: transforming numbers into movies.

Authors:  D G Pelli
Journal:  Spat Vis       Date:  1997

6.  Beware of the straight-ahead shift--a nonperceptual change in experiments on adaptation to displaced vision.

Authors:  C S Harris
Journal:  Perception       Date:  1974       Impact factor: 1.490

7.  Saccade adaptation improves in response to a gradually introduced stimulus perturbation.

Authors:  Aaron L Wong; Mark Shelhamer
Journal:  Neurosci Lett       Date:  2011-06-29       Impact factor: 3.046

8.  Measuring adaptation with a sinusoidal perturbation function.

Authors:  Todd E Hudson; Michael S Landy
Journal:  J Neurosci Methods       Date:  2012-04-24       Impact factor: 2.390

9.  Knowing each random error of our ways, but hardly correcting for it: an instance of optimal performance.

Authors:  Loes C J van Dam; Marc O Ernst
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-10-30       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Vector and position coding in goal-directed movements.

Authors:  Marieke C W van der Graaff; Eli Brenner; Jeroen B J Smeets
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2016-11-17       Impact factor: 1.972

View more
  3 in total

1.  Assessing explicit strategies in force field adaptation.

Authors:  Raphael Schween; Samuel D McDougle; Mathias Hegele; Jordan A Taylor
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2020-03-25       Impact factor: 2.714

2.  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

3.  Changes in error-correction behavior according to visuomotor maps in goal-directed projection tasks.

Authors:  Ayane Kusafuka; Ryoji Onagawa; Arata Kimura; Kazutoshi Kudo
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2022-03-23       Impact factor: 2.714

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.