Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 234, Issue 12, pp 3523–3530 | Cite as

Vibrotactile cuing revisited to reveal a possible challenge to sensorimotor adaptation

  • Beom-Chan Lee
  • Timothy A. Thrasher
  • Charles S. Layne
  • Bernard J. Martin
Research Article


Motor responses to unexpected external perturbations require the adjustment of the motor commands driving the ongoing activity. Strategies can be learned with practice to compensate for these unpredictable perturbations (e.g., externally induced slips and trips). It has been hypothesized that response improvements reflect the adaptation of motor commands through updates of an internal model. This hypothesis may be nuanced when a pre-existing motor response could be used. In that case, since a relatively adequate response is known, only the timing of the command needs to be determined. If so, then it could be inferred that the timing of movement initiation and the specific sequence of motor commands can be dissociated. Previously, we quantified the benefits of cuing vs. learning on recovery motor responses resulting from a trip induced by the abrupt stop of one side of a split belt treadmill. Trip occurrence was randomized within a series of strides. Two groups of young adults participated to two distinct experiments (learning, cuing). In the learning experiment, trip recovery improved progressively from the 4th to the 8th trial to reach an “adapted response”. In the cuing experiment, trip recovery was immediate (from 1st trial). Expanding from these results, the aim of the present work was to differentiate the processes underlying the generation of motor compensation strategies in response to an external perturbation under time uncertainty. A supplementary analysis revealed that “cued” responses were kinematically similar to the “adapted response” and remained invariant regardless of cue lead time (250, 500 ms before trip) and application location of the cue (arm, trunk, lower leg). It is posited that all responses (cued and non-cued) are the expression of a pre-existing motor program derived from life experiences. Here, the cue significantly reduces time uncertainty and adaptation consists primarily in resolving time uncertainty based on the trial-by-trial learning of the stochastic property of trip occurrence in order to reduce the response delay. Hence, response time delay and motor program parameters appear to stem from two distinct processes.


Timing uncertainty Vibrotactile cuing Induced trip Rehabilitation Fall recovery 



We thank S. Madansingh for his assistance in installing load sensors, recruiting study participants, and collecting data, H. Meng for his assistance with participant recruitment, and R. Kabbaligere for her assistance in identifying appropriate load sensors.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest



  1. Albert ST, Shadmehr R (2015) The feedback response to error is a teaching signal during motor adaptation. Program No 710.20. In: Neuroscience meeting planner; Washington, DC; Online. Society for Neuroscience, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexander BH, Rivara FP, Wolf ME (1992) The cost and frequency of hospitalization for fall-related injuries in older adults. Am J Public Health 82:1020–1023CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Al-Falahe NA, Vallbo AB (1988) Role of the human fusimotor system in a motor adaptation task. J Physiol 401:77–95CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Berniker M, Körding K (2011) Bayesian approaches to sensory integration for motor control. WIREs Cogn Sci 2:419–428. doi:10.1002/wcs.125 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bestmann S, Harrison LM, Blankenburg F, Mars RB, Haggard P, Friston KJ, Rothwell JC (2008) Influence of uncertainty and surprise on human corticospinal excitability during preparation for action. Curr Biol 18:775–780. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2008.04.051 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Bieryla KA, Madigan ML (2011) Proof of concept for perturbation-based balance training in older adults at a high risk for falls. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 92:841–843. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2010.12.004 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Blake AJ, Morgan K, Bendall MJ et al (1988) Falls by elderly people at home: prevalence and associated factors. Age Ageing 17:365–372CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. de Rugy A, Loeb GE, Carroll TJ (2012) Muscle coordination is habitual rather than optimal. J Neurosci 32:7384–7391. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5792-11.2012 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Horslen BC, Dakin CJ, Inglis JT, Blouin JS, Carpenter MG (2014) Modulation of human vestibular reflexes with increased postural threat. J Physiol 592:3671–3685. doi:10.1113/jphysiol.2014.270744 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Hospod V, Aimonetti JM, Roll JP, Ribot-Ciscar E (2007) Changes in human muscle spindle sensitivity during a proprioceptive attention task. J Neurosci 27:5172–5178CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Hudson TE, Maloney LT, Landy MS (2008) Optimal compensation for temporal uncertainty in movement planning. PLoS Comput Biol 4:e1000130. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000130 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Karniel A, Mussa-Ivaldi FA (2003) Sequence, time, or state representation: how does the motor control system adapt to variable environments? Biol Cybern 89:10–21. doi:10.1007/s00422-003-0397-7 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Kawato M (1999) Internal models for motor control and trajectory planning. Curr Opin Neurobiol 9:718–727CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Keele SW (1981) Behavioral analysis of movement. American Physiological Society, Baltimore, MDGoogle Scholar
  15. Kibbe MM, Kowler E (2011) Visual search for category sets: tradeoffs between exploration and memory. J Vis. doi:10.1167/11.3.14 PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Kim KH, Gillespie RB, Martin BJ (2014) Negotiated control between the manual and visual systems for visually guided hand reaching movements. J Neuroeng Rehabil 11:102. doi:10.1186/1743-0003-11-102 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Lee BC, Martin BJ, Thrasher TA, Layne CS (2016) The effect of vibrotactile cuing on recovery strategies from a treadmill-induced trip. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. doi:10.1109/TNSRE.2016.2556690 Google Scholar
  18. Leuthold H, Jentzsch I (2009) Planning of rapid aiming movements and the contingent negative variation: are movement duration and extent specified independently? Psychophysiology 46:539–550CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Leuthold H, Sommer W, Ulrich R (2004) Preparing for action: inferences from CNV and LRP. J Psychophysiol 18:77–88. doi:10.1027/0269-8803.18.23.77 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Leuthold H, Jentzsch I (2011) Are temporal response features prepared in fixed order? Inferences from movement-related potentials. Psychophysiol 48:633–644. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.2010.01126.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Levy N, Pressman A, Mussa-Ivaldi FA, Karniel A (2010) Adaptation to delayed force perturbations in reaching movements. PLoS one 5:e12128. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0012128 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Mansfield A, Peters AL, Liu BA, Maki BE (2007) A perturbation-based balance training program for older adults: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. BMC Geriatr 7:12. doi:10.1186/1471-2318-7-12 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Mansfield A, Peters AL, Liu BA, Maki BE (2010) Effect of a perturbation-based balance training program on compensatory stepping and grasping reactions in older adults: a randomized controlled trial. Phys Ther 90:476–491. doi:10.2522/ptj.20090070 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Mars RB, Bestmann S, Rothwell JC, Haggard P (2007) Effects of motor preparation and spatial attention on corticospinal excitability in a delayed-response paradigm. Exp Brain Res 182:125–129. doi:10.1007/s00221-007-1055-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Martin BJ, Roll JP, Di Renzo N (1991) The interaction of hand vibration with oculomanual coordination in pursuit tracking. Aviat Space Environ Med 62:145–152PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Martin BJ, Lee BC, Sienko KH (2015) A cutaneous positioning system. Exp Brain Res 233:1237–1245. doi:10.1007/s00221-014-4194-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Mathers LJ, Weiss HB (1998) Incidence and characteristics of fall-related emergency department visits. Acad Emerg Med 5:1064–1070CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Miyazaki M, Nozaki D, Nakajima Y (2005) Testing Bayesian models of human coincidence timing. J Neurophysiol 94:395–399. doi:10.1152/jn.01168.2004 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Neilson PD, O’Dwyer NJ, Neilson MD (1988) Stochastic prediction in pursuit tracking: an experimental test of adaptive model theory. Biol Cybern 58:113–122CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Pai YC, Bhatt T, Wang E, Espy D, Pavol MJ (2010) Inoculation against falls: rapid adaptation by young and older adults to slips during daily activities. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 91:452–459. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2009.10.032 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Perry J (1992) Gait analysis: normal and pathological function. SLACK Incorporated, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  32. Requin J, Brener J, Ring C (1991) Preparation for action. Wiley, New yorkGoogle Scholar
  33. Ribot-Ciscar E, Hospod V, Roll JP, Aimonetti JM (2009) Fusimotor drive may adjust muscle spindle feedback to task requirements in humans. J Neurophysiol 101:633–640CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Riehle A (2005) Preparation for action: one of the key functions of the motor cortex. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FLGoogle Scholar
  35. Rosenbaum DA (1980) Human movement initiation: specification of arm, direction, and extent. J Exp Psychol Gen 109:444–474CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Rosenbaum DA (1983) The movement precuing technique: assumptions, applications, and extensions. North-Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  37. Schiller JS, Kramarow EA, Dey AN (2007) Fall injury episodes among noninstitutionalized older adults: United States, 2001–2003. Adv Data 392:1–16Google Scholar
  38. Schmidt RA, Marteniuk RG, Newell KM (1975) A schema theory of discrete motor skill. Psychol Rev 82:225–260. doi:10.1037/h0076770 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Shadmehr R, Mussa-Ivaldi FA (1994) Adaptive representation of dynamics during learning of a motor task. J Neurosci 14:3208–3224PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Trommershauser J, Maloney LT, Landy MS (2003) Statistical decision theory and trade-offs in the control of motor response. Spat Vis 16:255–275CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Wang TY, Bhatt T, Yang F, Pai YC (2012) Adaptive control reduces trip-induced forward gait instability among young adults. J Biomech 45:1169–1175. doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2012.02.001 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. Wolpert DM, Ghahramani Z (2000) Computational principles of movement neuroscience. Nat Neurosci 3(Suppl):1212–1217. doi:10.1038/81497 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Wolpert DM, Landy MS (2012) Motor control is decision-making. Curr Opin Neurobiol 22:996–1003. doi:10.1016/j.conb.2012.05.003 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. Wolpert DM, Ghahramani Z, Jordan MI (1995) An internal model for sensorimotor integration. Science 269:1880–1882CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Beom-Chan Lee
    • 1
  • Timothy A. Thrasher
    • 1
    • 2
  • Charles S. Layne
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Bernard J. Martin
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Health and Human PerformanceUniversity of HoustonHoustonUSA
  2. 2.Center for Neuromotor and Biomechanics ResearchUniversity of HoustonHoustonUSA
  3. 3.Center for Neuro-Engineering and Cognitive ScienceUniversity of HoustonHoustonUSA
  4. 4.Center for Ergonomics, Department of Industrial and Operations EngineeringUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations