Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Flexibility and individual differences in visuo-proprioceptive integration: evidence from the analysis of a morphokinetic control task

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Experimental Brain Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Conflicting theories of visuo-proprioceptive integration in movement control suggest that each modality can be weighted according to either its statistical reliability or the computations in which the integrated estimates will be used. However, the psychophysical experiments on which most studies are based use sensory conflicts and are therefore likely to reflect particular rather than normal behavior. In this paper, we: (1) propose a method avoiding the use of sensory conflicts (delayed recall task), (2) restrict our interest to spontaneous rather than adapted behavior, and (3) focus on a complex task requiring fine online control in order for hand movements to fit a precise path during execution. Subjects were provided with either visual, proprioceptive or both cues while their right hand was passively moved to fit a precise three segment pathway. As soon as this encoding phase ended, they were instructed to reproduce actively the trajectory, either with vision, proprioception or both cues. Results provide evidence that vision and proprioception may be used very differently, (1) not only according to the relative resolution of the sensory systems in the actual context, (2) not only according to the processes involved in the task, but also (3) according to subjects. They also suggest that visual and proprioceptive cues are not fused to provide a weighted average position, but that the non-dominant cue could simply be ignored when subjects are provided with multiple sensory cues. We conclude that each of these observations illustrates the same fundamental property of flexibility of integrative mechanisms.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The results could be expected to reflect the effects of the modality in which a trajectory is memorized. However, since recall was performed as soon as encoding has ended (i.e., preventing from sensory drifts), we assume that most of the effects observed in this study are unlikely related to memory-based differences.

  2. (XYe(i), XYe(i + 1), XYr(i)), (XYe(i + 1), XYr(i), XYr(i + 1)), etc., until (XYe(600), XYr(599), XYr(600)), where XY = triangle coordinates, e = encoding and r = recall.

References

  • Adamovich SV, Berkinblit MB, Fookson O, Poizner H (1998) Pointing in 3D space to remembered targets. I. Kinesthetic versus visual target presentation. J Neurophysiol 79:2833–2846

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Adamovich SV, Berkinblit MB, Fookson O, Poizner H (1999) Pointing in 3D space to remembered targets. II. Effects of movement speed toward kinesthetically defined targets. Exp Brain Res 125:200–210

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bagesteiro LB, Sarlegna F, Sainburg RL (2006) Differential influence of vision and proprioception on control of movement distance. Exp Brain Res 171:358–370

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Baraduc P, Wolpert DM (2002) Adaptation to a visuomotor shift depends on the starting posture. J Neurophysiol 88:973–981

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Baraduc P, Guigon E, Burnod Y (2001) Recoding arm position to learn visuomotor transformations. Cereb Cortex 11:906–917

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bernier PM, Chua R, Franks IM (2005) Is proprioception calibrated during visually guided movements? Exp Brain Res 167:292–296

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Boulinguez P, Sares F, Benraiss A, Rouhana J (2006) Perceptuo-motor interactions: interindividual differences in multimodal integration, chapter 6. In: Columbus F (ed) Focus on nonverbal communication research. Nova Science Publishers, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Burnod Y, Baraduc P, Battaglia-Mayer A, Guigon E, Koechlin E, Ferraina S, Lacquaniti F, Caminiti R (1999) Parieto-frontal coding of reaching: an integrated framework. Exp Brain Res 129:325–346

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Coello Y, Milleville-Pennel I, Orliaguet JP (2004) Position coding in a video-controlled pointing task with a rotated visual display: evidence for individual differences in visuo-proprioceptive interaction. Neurosci Lett 369:214–218

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Deneve S, Pouget A (2004) Bayesian multisensory integration and cross-modal spatial links. J Physiol Paris 98:249–258

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Desmurget M, Grafton S (2000) Forward modeling allows feedback control for fast reaching movements. Trends Cogn Sci 4:423–431

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Desmurget M, Pelisson D, Rossetti Y, Prablanc C (1998) From eye to hand: planning goal-directed movements. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 22:761–788

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Desmurget M, Grafton S, Vindras P, Gréa H, Turner RS (2004) The basal ganglia network mediates the planning of movement amplitude. Eur J Neurosci 19:2871–2880

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dounskaia N, Van Gemmert AW, Stelmach GE (2000) Interjoint coordination during handwriting-like movements. Exp Brain Res 135:127–140

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gritsenko V, Krouchev NI, Kalaska JF (2007) Afferent input, efference copy, signal noise and biases in perception of joint angle during active versus passive elbow movements. J Neurophysiol (DOI 0:00162.2007v1)

  • Lacquaniti F, Terzuolo C, Viviani P (1983) The law relating the kinematic and figural aspects of drawing movements. Acta Psychol 54:115–130

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lateiner JE, Sainburg RL (2003) Differential contributions of vision and proprioception to movement accuracy. Exp Brain Res 151:446–454

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mackrous I, Proteau L (2007) Specificity of practice results from differences in movement planning strategies. Exp Brain Res (DOI 10.1007/s00221-007-1031-z)

  • Messier J, Kalaska JF (2000) Covariation of primate dorsal premotor cell activity with direction and amplitude during a memorized-delay reaching task. J Neurophysiol 84:152–165

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Riehle A, Requin J (1989) Monkey primary and premotor cortex: single-cell activity related to prior information about direction and extent of an intended movement. J Neurophysiol 61:534–549

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sainburg RL, Lateiner JE, Latash ML, Bagesteiro LB (2003) Effects of altering initial position on movement direction and extent. J Neurophysiol 89:401–415

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sarlegna FR, Sainburg RL (2007) The effect of target modality on visual and proprioceptive contributions to the control of movement distance. Exp Brain Res 176:267–280

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sarlegna FR, Gauthier GM, Vercher JL, Bourdin C, Blouin J (2006) Internally driven control of reaching movements: a study on a proprioceptively deafferented subject. Brain Res Bull 69:404–415

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sober SJ, Sabes PN (2003) Multisensory integration during motor planning. J Neurosci 23:6982–6992

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sober SJ, Sabes PN (2005) Flexible strategies for sensory integration during motor planning. Nat Neurosci 8:490–497

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Soechting JF, Flanders M (1989a) Sensorimotor representations for pointing to targets in three-dimensional space. J Neurophysiol 62:582–594

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Soechting JF, Flanders M (1989b) Errors in pointing are due to approximations in sensorimotor transformations. J Neurophysiol 62:595–608

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • van Beers RJ, Sittig AC, Denier van der Gon JJ (1999) Integration of proprioceptive and visual position-information: an experimentally supported model. J Neurophysiol 81:1355–1364

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • van Beers RJ, Baraduc P, Wolpert DM (2002a) Role of uncertainty in sensorimotor control. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 357:1137–1145

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • van Beers RJ, Wolpert DM, Haggard P (2002b) When feeling is more important than seeing in sensorimotor adaptation. Curr Biol 12:834–837

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vindras P, Desmurget M, Viviani P (2005) Error parsing in visuomotor pointing reveals independent processing of amplitude and direction. J Neurophysiol 94:1212–1224

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Welch RB (1985) Adaptation of space perception. In: Boff K, Kaufman L, Thomas J (eds) Handbook of perception and human performance, vol 1. Wiley, New York pp 24–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Welch RB, Widawski MH, Harrington J, Warren DH (1979) An examination of the relationship between visual capture and prism adaptation. Percept Psychophys 25:126–132

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Abdelrhani Benraiss for help in data collection and Lionel Granjon for help in data processing. We are grateful to Pierre Baraduc and two anonymous reviewers for helpful discussions on previous versions of this work. This research was funded by the MSHS, XIIème CPER, University of Poitiers.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. LMPC, Université de Poitiers, Poitiers, France

    Philippe Boulinguez & Joëlle Rouhana

  2. Laboratoire Performance, Motricité and Cognition, MSHS, 99 avenue du Recteur Pineau, 86000, Poitiers, France

    Philippe Boulinguez

Authors
  1. Philippe Boulinguez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Joëlle Rouhana
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Philippe Boulinguez.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Boulinguez, P., Rouhana, J. Flexibility and individual differences in visuo-proprioceptive integration: evidence from the analysis of a morphokinetic control task. Exp Brain Res 185, 137–149 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-007-1140-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-007-1140-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation