Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 195, Issue 1, pp 167–172 | Cite as

Perception of movement extent depends on the extent of previous movements

  • Tatjana Seizova-Cajic
  • Janette L. Smith
  • Janet L. Taylor
  • Simon C. Gandevia
Research Note
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

We report an aftereffect in perception of the extent (or degree or range) of joint movement, showing for the first time that a prolonged exposure to a passive back-and-forth movement of a certain extent results in a change in judgment of the extent of a subsequently presented movement. The adapting stimulus, movement about the wrist, had an extent of either 30° or 75°, while the test stimulus was a 50° movement. Following a 4-min adaptation period, the estimated magnitudes of the test stimuli were 61° and 36° in the 30° and 75° condition, respectively (t test(6) = 9.6; p < 0.001). The observed effect is an instance of repulsion or contrast commonly described in perception literature, with perceived value of the test stimulus pushed away from the adapting stimulus.

Keywords

Proprioception Kinesthesis Adaptation Aftereffects Movement extent 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia to JT and SC.

References

  1. Attneave F (1954) Informational aspects of visual perception. Psych Rev 61:183–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barlow H (1990) A theory about the functional role and synaptic mechanism of visual after-effects. In: Blakemore C (ed) Vision: coding and efficiency. Cambridge University Press, London, pp 363–375Google Scholar
  3. Clifford C (2002) Perceptual adaptation: motion parallels orientation. Trends Cogn Sci 6:136–143PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Clifford C, Rhodes G (2005) Fitting the mind to the world: adaptation and after-effects in high-level vision. Oxford University Press, NY, p 376Google Scholar
  5. DiZio P, Lackner J (2002) Proprioceptive adaptation and aftereffects. In: Stanney K (ed) Handbook of virtual environments. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New York, pp 751–777Google Scholar
  6. Gandevia S (1996) Kinesthesia: roles for afferent signals and motor commands. In: Rowell L, Shepherd J (eds) Handbook on integration of motor, circulatory, respiratory and metabolic control during exercise. American Physiological Society, Bethesda, pp 128–172Google Scholar
  7. Gardner E, Costanzo R (1981) Properties of kinaesthetic neurons in somatosensory cortex of awake monkeys. Brain Res 214:301–319PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gescheider G (1997) Psychophysics: the fundamentals, 3rd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. Gibson J (1933) Adaptation, aftereffect, and contrast in the perception of curved lines. J Exp Psych 16:1–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Helson H (1948) Adaptation-level as a basis for a quantitative theory of frames of reference. Psych Rev 55:297–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kito T, Hashimoto T, Yoneda T, Katamoto S, Naito E (2006) Sensory processing during kinesthetic aftereffect following illusory hand movement elicited by tendon vibration. Brain Res 1114:75–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mather G, Harris J (1998) Theoretical models of the motion aftereffect. In: Mather G, Verstraten F, Anstis S (eds) The motion aftereffect. MIT Press, Bradford, pp 157–185Google Scholar
  13. Matthews PBC (1982) Where does Sherrington’s ‘muscular sense’ originate? Muscles, joints, corollary discharges? Ann Rev Neurosci 5:189–218PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. McCloskey D (1978) Kinesthetic sensibility. Physiol Rev 58(4):763–820PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Mountcastle VB, Powell TPS (1959) Central nervous mechanisms subserving position sense and kinesthesis. Johns Hopkins Hosp Bull 105:173–200Google Scholar
  16. Poulton E (1979) Models for biases in judging sensory magnitude. Psych Bul 86(4):777–803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Schrater P, Simoncelli P (1998) Local velocity representation: evidence from motion adaptation. Vis Res 38:3899–3912PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Schwartz O, Hsu A, Dayan P (2007) Space and time in visual context. Nat Rev Neurosci 8:522–535PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Seizova-Cajic T, Smith J, Taylor J, Gandevia S (2007) Propriceptive movement illusions due to prolonged stimulation: reversals and aftereffects. PLoS ONE 2(10):e1037PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Suzuki S (2005) High-level pattern coding revealed by brief shape aftereffects. In: Clifford C, Rhodes G (eds) Fitting the mind to the world: adaptation and after-effects in high-level vision. Oxford University Press, NYGoogle Scholar
  21. Thompson P (1981) Velocity after-effects: the effects of adaptation to moving stimuli on the perception of subsequently seen moving stimuli. Vis Res 21:337–345PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Welch RB (1978) Perceptual modification. Academic, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Wolfe JM (1984) Short test flashes produce large tilt aftereffects. Vis Res 24:1959–1964PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tatjana Seizova-Cajic
    • 2
  • Janette L. Smith
    • 3
  • Janet L. Taylor
    • 1
  • Simon C. Gandevia
    • 1
  1. 1.Prince of Wales Medical Research InstituteUniversity of New South WalesSydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Faculty of Health SciencesUniversity of SydneyLidcombeAustralia
  3. 3.School of PsychologyUniversity of NewcastleNewcastleAustralia

Personalised recommendations