Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 237, Issue 1, pp 147–159 | Cite as

Adaptive changes in automatic motor responses based on acquired visuomotor correspondence

  • Yoshihiro ItaguchiEmail author
  • Kazuyoshi Fukuzawa
Research Article


The present study tested whether remapping of visuomotor correspondence alters automatic motor responses induced by visual stimuli. We hypothesized that the congruency effect, an automatic modulation of motor responses based on stimulus–response congruency, changes in accordance with a new visuomotor correspondence acquired through an adaptation task. To induce visuomotor adaptation, participants performed a tracking task with 30° or 150° rotation of the visual feedback. The congruency effect was evaluated multiple times by a visual response task where participants moved their finger left or right. We predicted that the congruency effect, as a measure of automatic responses, would be almost reversed after adaptation to the 150° rotation, because a visual stimulus spatially opposite to the participant’s own action would become a “congruent” stimulus in a 150°-rotated environment but not in a 30°-rotation environment. The results show that visuomotor adaptation to the 150° rotation did modulate the congruency effect in accordance with the acquired visuomotor correspondence, but did not completely reverse the effect. When the effect was assessed after the manipulation, which was assumed to switch an internal model back to its normal state, there was no change in automatic motor responses. Furthermore, we found that after effects developed as the training proceeded but decreased over time. These findings suggest that the visuomotor system subserving automatic modulation in motor responses is based on the currently active internal model and, therefore, highly adaptive. In addition, the mechanism underlying after effects in a visuomotor task is discussed in terms of a switching function of internal models.


Visuomotor transformation Motor plasticity Motor learning S–R congruency Generalization 



This work was supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, KAKENHI (Grant Numbers 16J00325 and 15K04195).

Supplementary material

221_2018_5409_MOESM1_ESM.docx (621 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 620 KB)


  1. Bertenthal BI, Longo MR, Kosobud A (2006) Imitative response tendencies following observation of intransitive actions. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 32:210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bock O (2005) Components of sensorimotor adaptation in young and elderly subjects. Exp Brain Res 160:259–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bond KM, Taylor JA (2015) Flexible explicit but rigid implicit learning in a visuomotor adaptation task. J Neurophysiol 113:3836–3849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bosbach S, Prinz W, Kerzel D (2005) Movement-based compatibility in simple response tasks. Eur J Cognit Psychol 17:695–707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bouquet C, Gaurier V, Shipley T, Toussaint L, Blandin Y (2007) Influence of the perception of biological or non-biological motion on movement execution. J Sports Sci 25:519–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boyer TW, Longo MR, Bertenthal BI (2012) Is automatic imitation a specialized form of stimulus–response compatibility? Dissociating imitative and spatial compatibilities. Acta Physiol (Oxf) 139:440–448Google Scholar
  7. Brass M, Bekkering H, Wohlschläger A, Prinz W (2000) Compatibility between observed and executed finger movements: comparing symbolic, spatial, and imitative cues. Brain Cognit 44:124–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brass M, Bekkering H, Prinz W (2001) Movement observation affects movement execution in a simple response task. Acta Psychol 106:3–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Buccino G, Vogt S, Ritzl A, Fink GR, Zilles K, Freund H-J, Rizzolatti G (2004) Neural circuits underlying imitation learning of hand actions: an event-related fMRI study. Neuron 42:323–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Buch ER, Young S, Contreras-Vidal JL (2003) Visuomotor adaptation in normal aging. Learn Mem 10:55–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Craighero L, Fadiga L, Rizzolatti G, Umiltà C (1999) Action for perception: a motor-visual attentional effect. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 25:1673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Craighero L, Bello A, Fadiga L, Rizzolatti G (2002) Hand action preparation influences the responses to hand pictures. Neuropsychologia 40:492–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Day KA, Roemmich RT, Taylor JA, Bastian AJ (2016) Visuomotor learning generalizes around the intended movement. eNeuro 3:ENEURO.0005-0016.2016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dayan E, Cohen LG (2011) Neuroplasticity subserving motor skill learning. Neuron 72:443–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Doyon J, Owen AM, Petrides M, Sziklas V, Evans AC (1996) Functional anatomy of visuomotor skill learning in human subjects examined with positron emission tomography. Eur J Neurosci 8:637–648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Edwards MG, Humphreys GW, Castiello U (2003) Motor facilitation following action observation: a behavioural study in prehensile action. Brain Cogn 53:495–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ewolds HE, Bröker L, De Oliveira RF, Raab M, Künzell S (2017) Implicit and explicit knowledge both improve dual task performance in a continuous pursuit tracking task. Front Psychol 8:2241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Floyer-Lea A, Matthews P (2004) Changing brain networks for visuomotor control with increased movement automaticity. J Neurophysiol 92:2405–2412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Foulkes AJM, Miall RC (2000) Adaptation to visual feedback delays in a human manual tracking task. Exp Brain Res 131:101–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gandevia SC, Smith JL, Crawford M, Proske U, Taylor JL (2006) Motor commands contribute to human position sense. J Physiol 571:703–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ghahramani Z, Wolpert DM (1997) Modular decomposition in visuomotor learning. Nature 386:392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Haruno M, Wolpert DM, Kawato M (2001) Mosaic model for sensorimotor learning and control. Neural Comput 13:2201–2220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hatada Y, Miall R, Rossetti Y (2006) Two waves of a long-lasting aftereffect of prism adaptation measured over 7 days. Exp Brain Res 169:417–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Heyes C (2011) Automatic imitation. Psychol Bull 137:463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hommel B (1996) SR compatibility effects without response uncertainty. Q J Exp Psychol Sect A 49:546–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Imamizu H, Kawato M (2008) Neural correlates of predictive and postdictive switching mechanisms for internal models. J Neurosci 28:10751–10765CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Imamizu H, Kawato M (2009) Brain mechanisms for predictive control by switching internal models: implications for higher-order cognitive functions. Psychol Res PRPF 73:527–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Imamizu H, Miyauchi S, Tamada T et al (2000) Human cerebellar activity reflecting an acquired internal model of a new tool. Nature 403:192–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Imamizu H, Kuroda T, Miyauchi S, Yoshioka T, Kawato M (2003) Modular organization of internal models of tools in the human cerebellum. Proc Natl Acad Sci 100:5461–5466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Imamizu H, Kuroda T, Yoshioka T, Kawato M (2004) Functional magnetic resonance imaging examination of two modular architectures for switching multiple internal models. J Neurosci 24:1173–1181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Imamizu H, Higuchi S, Toda A, Kawato M (2007) Reorganization of brain activity for multiple internal models after short but intensive training. Cortex 43:338–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Itaguchi Y, Kaneko F (2018) Motor priming by movement observation with contralateral concurrent action execution. Hum Mov Sci 57:94–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jacobs RA, Jordan MI, Nowlan SJ, Hinton GE (1991) Adaptive mixtures of local experts. Neural Comput 3:79–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kagerer FA, Contreras-Vidal JL, Stelmach GE (1997) Adaptation to gradual as compared with sudden visuo-motor distortions. Exp Brain Res 115:557–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kaida K, Itaguchi Y, Iwaki S (2017) Interactive effects of visuomotor perturbation and an afternoon nap on performance and the flow experience. PloS One 12:e0171907CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kawato M, Furukawa K, Suzuki R (1987) A hierarchical neural-network model for control and learning of voluntary movement. Biol Cybern 57:169–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kilner JM, Paulignan Y, Blakemore SJ (2003) An interference effect of observed biological movement on action. Curr Biol 13:522–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kim S, Oh Y, Schweighofer N (2015) Between-trial forgetting due to interference and time in motor adaptation. PloS One 10:e0142963CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kim HE, Morehead JR, Parvin DE, Moazzezi R, Ivry RB (2018) Invariant errors reveal limitations in motor correction rather than constraints on error sensitivity. Commun Biol 1:19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Klassen J, Tong C, Flanagan JR (2005) Learning and recall of incremental kinematic and dynamic sensorimotor transformations. Exp Brain Res 164:250–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Krakauer JW (2009) Motor learning and consolidation: the case of visuomotor rotation. In: Progress in motor control. Springer, Boston, pp 405–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Krakauer JW, Ghilardi M-F, Ghez C (1999) Independent learning of internal models for kinematic and dynamic control of reaching. Nat Neurosci 2:1026–1031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Krakauer JW, Pine ZM, Ghilardi M-F, Ghez C (2000) Learning of visuomotor transformations for vectorial planning of reaching trajectories. J Neurosci 20:8916–8924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Krakauer JW, Ghilardi M-F, Mentis M, Barnes A, Veytsman M, Eidelberg D, Ghez C (2004) Differential cortical and subcortical activations in learning rotations and gains for reaching: a PET study. J Neurophysiol 91:924–933CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kravitz JH, Yaffe F (1972) Conditioned adaptation to prismatic displacement with a tone as the conditional stimulus. Attent Percept Psychophys 12:305–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Krebs HI, Brashers-Krug T, Rauch SL et al (1998) Robot-aided functional imaging: application to a motor learning study. Hum Brain Mapp 6:59–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Künzell S, Sießmeir D, Ewolds H (2016) Validation of the continuous tracking paradigm for studying implicit motor learning. Exp Psychol 63:318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kupferberg A, Huber M, Helfer B, Lenz C, Knoll A, Glasauer S (2012) Moving just like you: motor interference depends on similar motility of agent and observer. PloS One 7:e39637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lee J-Y, Schweighofer N (2009) Dual adaptation supports a parallel architecture of motor memory. J Neurosci 29:10396–10404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Liepelt R, Brass M (2010) Top-down modulation of motor priming by belief about animacy. Exp Psychol 57:221–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Liepelt R, Cramon D, Brass M (2008) What is matched in direct matching? Intention attribution modulates motor priming. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 34:578–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mazzoni P, Krakauer JW (2006) An implicit plan overrides an explicit strategy during visuomotor adaptation. J Neurosci 26:3642–3645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. McDougle SD, Bond KM, Taylor JA (2017) Implications of plan-based generalization in sensorimotor adaptation. J Neurophysiol 118:383–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Miall RC, Wolpert DM (1996) Forward models for physiological motor control. Neural Netw 9:1265–1279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Morehead JR, Taylor JA, Parvin DE, Ivry RB (2017) Characteristics of implicit sensorimotor adaptation revealed by task-irrelevant clamped feedback. J Cognit Neurosci 29:1061–1074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Neville K-M, Cressman EK (2018) The influence of awareness on explicit and implicit contributions to visuomotor adaptation over time. Exp Brain Res 236:2047–2059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Osu R, Hirai S, Yoshioka T, Kawato M (2004) Random presentation enables subjects to adapt to two opposing forces on the hand. Nat Neurosci 7:111–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Petersen SE, Van Mier H, Fiez JA, Raichle ME (1998) The effects of practice on the functional anatomy of task performance. Proc Natl Acad Sci 95:853–860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sekiyama K, Miyauchi S, Imaruoka T, Egusa H, Tashiro T (2000) Body image as a visuomotor transformation device revealed in adaptation to reversed vision. Nature 407:374–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Shadmehr R (2017) Learning to predict and control the physics of our movements. J Neurosci 37:1663–1671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Simon JR, Rudell AP (1967) Auditory SR compatibility: the effect of an irrelevant cue on information processing. J Appl Psychol 51:300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Tardy-Gervet MF, Gilhodes JC, Roll JP (1984) Perceptual and motor effects elicited by a moving visual stimulus below the forearm: an example of segmentary vection. Behav Brain Res 11:171–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Taylor JA, Ivry RB (2013) Context-dependent generalization. Front Hum Neurosci 7:171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Taylor JA, Krakauer JW, Ivry RB (2014) Explicit and implicit contributions to learning in a sensorimotor adaptation task. J Neurosci 34:3023–3032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Tong C, Flanagan JR (2003) Task-specific internal models for kinematic transformations. J Neurophysiol 90:578–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wolpert DM, Kawato M (1998) Multiple paired forward and inverse models for motor control. Neural Netw 11:1317–1329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wolpert DM, Ghahramani Z, Jordan MI (1995) An internal model for sensorimotor integration. Science 269:1880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Woodworth RS (1899) Accuracy of voluntary movement. Psychol Rev Monogr Suppl 3:1–114Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of System Design EngineeringKeio UniversityYokohamaJapan
  2. 2.Japan Society for the Promotion of ScienceTokyoJapan
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyWaseda UniversityTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations