Interference between adaptation to double steps and adaptation to rotated feedback in spite of differences in directional selectivity

Abstract

Two key features of sensorimotor adaptation are the directional selectivity of adaptive changes and the interference of adaptations to opposite directions. The present study investigated whether directional selectivity and interference of adaptation are related to executive functions and whether these phenomena differ between two methods for visuomotor adaptation. Subjects adapted at three target directions to clockwise or counterclockwise rotated feedback or to clockwise or counterclockwise target displacements (double steps). Both adaptation methods induce rotations of movement trajectories into the same direction, but provide visual information differently. The results showed that adaptation progressed differently between three targets. When movements adapted clockwise, adaptation was best at the most clockwise located target, and when movements adapted counterclockwise, it was best at the most counterclockwise located target, suggesting that spatial generalization between target directions is related to the direction of motor adaptation. The two adaptation methods produced different adaptation patterns, which indicate a further impact of visual information. A second adaptation to the other and opposite-directed discordance was worse than naive adaptation and washed out the aftereffects from the first adaptation, confirming that both adaptation methods interfered. Executive functions were significant covariate for overall interference and interference of target-specific adaptation. The results suggest that directional selectivity of adaptation is shaped by the direction of motor adaptation and the visual information provided. The interference of both adaptation methods indicates that they share adaptive mechanisms for recalibration. The interference is the lower the better subjects are able to cognitively switch between tasks and to inhibit prepotent responses. Therefore, cognitive functions seem to be involved in the inhibition of non-adequate sensorimotor responses.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Notes

  1. 1.

    Data of a 26th subject had not been saved due to a computer error.

References

  1. Abeele S, Bock O (2001) Sensorimotor adaptation to rotated visual input: different mechanisms for small versus large rotations. Exp Brain Res 140:407–410

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Allen MD, Owens TE, Fong AK, Richards DR (2011) A functional neuroimaging analysis of the Trail Making Test-B: implications for clinical application. Behav Neurol 24:159–171

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Anderson V, Jacobs R, Anderson PJ (2008) Executive functions and the frontal lobes: a lifespan perspective (studies on neuropsychology, neurology, and cognition). Taylor & Francis Group, New York

    Google Scholar 

  4. Anguera JA, Bernard JA, Jaeggi SM, Buschkuehl M, Brenson BL, Jennett S, Humfleet J, Reuter-Lorenz PA, Jonides J, Seidler RA (2012) The effects of working memory resource depletion and training on sensorimotor adaptation. Behav Brain Res 228:107–115

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Baeumler G (1985) Farbe-Wort-Interferenztest (FWIT) nach J.R. Stroop. Hogrefe, Göttingen

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bédard P, Song JH (2013) Attention modulates generalization of visuomotor adaptation. J Vis 13(12):12

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bedford FL (1993) Perceptual and cognitive spatial learning. J Exp Psychol Hum 19:517–530

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bock O (2013) Basic principles of sensorimotor adaptation to different distortions with different effectors and movement types: a review and synthesis of behavioral findings. Front Hum Neurosci 7(81):1–5

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bock O, Girgenrath M (2006) Relationship between sensorimotor adaptation and cognitive functions in younger and older subjects. Exp Brain Res 169(3):400–406

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Bock O, Schmitz G (2011) Adaptation to rotated visual feedback depends on the number and spread of target locations. Exp Brain Res 209(2):409–413

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bock O, Worringham C, Thomas M (2005) Concurrent adaptations of left and right arms to opposite visual distortions. Exp Brain Res 162:513–519

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Bock O, Schmitz G, Grigorova V (2008) Transfer of adaptation between ocular saccades and arm movements. Hum Mov Sci 27:383–395

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Borisova S, Bock O, Grigorova V (2014) Concurrent directional adaptation of reactive saccades and hand movements to target displacements of different size. J Motor Behav 46(5):303–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Bortz J (2005) Statistik fuer Human- und Sozialwissenschafter. Springer Medizin Verlag, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  15. Chase C, Seidler R (2008) Degree of handedness affects intermanual transfer of skill learning. Exp Brain Res 190:317–328

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Cunningham HA, Welch RB (1994) Multiple concurrent visual-motor mappings: implications for models of adaptation. J Exp Psychol Hum 20(5):987–999

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Eversheim U, Bock O (2001) Evidence for processing stages in skill acquisition: a dual-task study. Learn Mem 8:183–189

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Girgenrath M, Bock O, Seitz RJ (2008) An fMRI study of brain activation in a visual adaptation task: activation limited to sensory guidance. Exp Brain Res 184(4):561–569

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Grigorova V, Bock O, Borisova S (2013) Concurrent adaptation of reactive saccades and hand pointing movements to equal and to opposite changes of target directions. Exp Brain Res 226:63–71

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Guadagnoli E, Velicer WF (1988) Relation of sample size to the stability of component patterns. Psych Bull 103:265–275

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Heuer H, Hegele M (2008) Adaptation to visuomotor rotations in younger and older adults. Psychol Aging 23(1):190–202

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Heuer H, Hegele M (2011) Generalization of implicit and explicit adjustments to visuomotor rotations across the workspace in younger and older adults. J Neurophysiol 106(4):2078–2085

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Imamizu H, Kawato M (2008) Neural correlates of predictive and postdictive switching mechanisms for internal models. J Neurosci 28(42):10751–10765

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Imamizu H, Uno Y, Kawato M (1995) Internal representations of the motor apparatus: Implications from generalization in visuomotor learning. J Exp Psychol Hum 21(5):1174–1198

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Imamizu H, Sugimoto N, Osu R, Tsutsui K, Sugiyama K, Wada Y et al (2007) Explicit contextual information selectively contributes to predictive switching of internal models. Exp Brain Res 181(3):395–408

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Kirsch P, Lis S, Esslinger C, Gruppe H, Danos P, Broll J, Wiltink J, Gallhofer B (2006) Brain Activation during mental maze solving. Neuropsychobiology 54:51–58

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Krakauer JW, Pine ZM, Ghilardi MF, Ghez C (2000) Learning of visuomotor transformations for vectorial planning of reaching trajectories. J Neurosci 20(23):8916–8924

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Lee GP, Strauss E, Loring DW, McCloskey L, Haworth JM, Lehman RAW (1997) Clin Neuropsychol 11(1):59–68

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Lex H, Weigelt M, Knoblauch A, Schack T (2014) The functional role of cognitive frameworks on visuomotor adaptation performance. J Motor Behav 46(6):389–396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. McLaughlin SC (1967) Parametic adjustment in saccadic eye movements. Percept Psychophys 2:359–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. McNay EC, Willingham DB (1998) Deficit in learning of a motor skill requiring strategy, but not of perceptualmotor recalibration, with aging. Learn Mem 4:411–420

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Moosbrugger H, Oehlschlägel J, Steinwascher M (2011) Frankfurter-Aufmerksamkeitsinventar 2. Huber, Bern

    Google Scholar 

  33. Novick I, Vadia E (2011) Just do it: action dependent learning allows sensory prediction. PLoS ONE 6(10):e26020

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Oswald WD, Roth E (1987) Der Zahlen-Verbindungs-Test [Number-Connection-Test]: Ein sprachfreier Intelligenztest zur Messung der „kognitiven Leistungsgeschwindigkeit. Hogrefe, Goettingen

    Google Scholar 

  35. Polk TA, Drake RM, Jonides JJ, Smith MR, Smith EE (2008) Attention enhances the neural processing of relevant features and suppresses the processing of irrelevant features in humans: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study of the stroop task. J Neurosci 28(51):13786–13792

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Redding GM, Wallace B (1996) Adaptive spatial alignment and strategic perceptual-motor control. J Exp Psychol Human 22(2):379–394

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Redding GM, Wallace (2011) Prism adaptation in left-handers. Atten Percept Psychophys 73:1871–1885

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Regard M, Strauss E, Knapp P (1982) Childrens’ production on verbal and nonverbal fluency tasks. Percept Mot Skills 55(3):839–844

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Reitan RM (1958) Validity of the Trail Making test as an indicator of organic brain damage. Percept Mot Skills 8:271–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Roby-Brami A, Burnod Y (1995) Learning a new visuomotor transformation: error correction and generalization. Cogn Brain Res 2(4):229–242

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Sainburg RL (2005) Handedness: differential specializations for control of trajectory and position. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 33(4):206–213

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Schmitz G (2014) Visuo- und audiomotorische Adaptation. Hofmann-Verlag, Schorndorf. ISBN 978-3-7780-4850-4

    Google Scholar 

  43. Schmitz G, Bock O, Grigorova V, Ilieva M (2010) Adaptation of eye and hand movements to target displacements of different size. Exp Brain Res 203:479–484

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Schmitz G, Bock O, Grigorova V, Borisova S (2012) Adaptation of hand movements to double-step targets and to distorted visual feedback: evidence for shared mechanisms. Hum Mov Sci 31:791–800

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Seidler R, Bo J, Anguera JA (2012) Neurocognitive contributions to motor skill learning: the role of working memory. J Mot Behav 44(6):445–453

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Shadmehr R, Wise SP (2005) The computational neurobiology of reaching and pointing: a foundation for motor learning Computational neuroscience. MIT-Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  47. Simon A, Bock O (2015) Does visuomotor adaptation proceed in stages? An examination of the learning model by Chein and Schneider. J Motor Behav 47(6):503–508

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Smith EE, Jonides J (1999) Storage and executive processes in the frontal lobes. Science 283(5408):1657–1661

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Spreen O, Strauss E (1998) A compendium of neuropsychological tests. Administration, norms, and commentary. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  50. Tucha L, Aschenbrenner S, Koerts J, Lange KW (2012) The Five-Point Test: reliability, validity and normative data for children and adults. PLoS ONE 7(9):e46080. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0046080

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Wang J, Sainburg RL (2005) Adaptation to visuomotor rotations remaps movement vectors, not final positions. J Neurosci 25(16):4024–4030

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Wang J, Sainburg RL (2006) Interlimb transfer of visuomotor rotations depends on handedness. Exp Brain Res 175:223–230

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Welch RB (1978) Perceptual modification. Adapting to altered sensory environments. Academic Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Thanks to the staff of the project ‘Cognition in motion’ (Leibniz University Hannover, 60460288) for programming the software and their support during the cognitive testing.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gerd Schmitz.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval

All procedures performed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by the author.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Conflict of interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schmitz, G. Interference between adaptation to double steps and adaptation to rotated feedback in spite of differences in directional selectivity. Exp Brain Res 234, 1491–1504 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-016-4559-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Visuomotor adaptation
  • Interference
  • Directional selectivity
  • Executive functions