Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 236, Issue 2, pp 419–432 | Cite as

Adaptation to proprioceptive targets following visuomotor adaptation

  • Jenna C. Flannigan
  • Ruth J. Posthuma
  • Jesse N. Lombardo
  • Chelsea Murray
  • Erin K. Cressman
Research Article


In the following study, we asked if reaches to proprioceptive targets are updated following reach training with a gradually introduced visuomotor perturbation. Subjects trained to reach with distorted hand-cursor feedback, such that they saw a cursor that was rotated or translated relative to their actual hand movement. Following reach training trials with the cursor, subjects reached to Visual (V), Proprioceptive (P) and Visual + Proprioceptive (VP) targets with no visual feedback of their hand. Comparison of reach endpoints revealed that reaches to VP targets followed similar trends as reaches to P targets, regardless of the training distortion introduced. After reaching with a rotated cursor, subjects adapted their reaches to all target types in a similar manner. However, after reaching with a translated cursor, subjects adapted their reach to V targets only. Taken together, these results show that following training with a visuomotor distortion, subjects primarily rely on proprioceptive information when reaching to VP targets. Furthermore, results indicate that reach adaptation to P targets depends on the distortion presented. Training with a rotation distortion leads to changes in reaches to both V and P targets, while a translation distortion, which introduces a constant discrepancy between visual and proprioceptive estimates of hand position throughout the reach, affects changes to V but not P targets.


Visuomotor adaptation Visual target Proprioceptive target Sensory integration 


Compliance with ethical standards


Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (EKC).


  1. Baraduc P, Wolpert DM (2002) Adaptation to a visuomotor shift depends on the starting posture. J Neurophysiol 88:973–981CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bernier PM, Chua R, Franks IM (2005) Is proprioception calibrated during visually guided movements? Exp Brain Res 167:292–296CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bernier PM, Gauthier GM, Blouin (2007) Evidence for distinct, differentially adaptable sensorimotor transformations for reaches to visual and proprioceptive targets. J Neurophysiol 98:1815–1819CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Berniker M, Kording K (2008) Estimating the sources of motor errors for adaptation and generalization. Nat Neurosci 11:1454–1461CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Block H, Bastian A (2010) Sensory reweighting in targeted reaching: Effects of conscious effort, error history, and target salience. J Neurophysiol 103:206–217CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Block H, Bastian A (2011) Sensory weighting and realignment: independent compensatory processes. J Neurophysiol 106:59–70CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Block H, Bastian A (2012) Cerebellar involvement in motor but not sensory adaptation. Neuropsychologia 50(8):1766–1775CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Buch ER, Young S, Contreras-Vidal JL (2003) Visuomotor adaptation in normal aging. Learn Memory 10:55–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clayton HA, Cressman EK, Henriques DY (2014) The effect of visuomotor adaptation on proprioceptive localization: the contributions of perceptual and motor changes. Exp Brain Res 232:2073–2086CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Craske B, Gregg SJ (1966) Prism after-effects: identical results for visual targets and unexposed limb. Nature 212:104–105CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Cressman EK, Henriques DY (2009) Sensory recalibration of hand position following visuomotor adaptation. J Neurophysiol 102:3505–3518CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Desmurget M, Pelisson D, Rossetti Y, Prablanc C (1998) From eye to hand: planning goal directed movements. Neurosci Biobehav R 22:761–788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ernst M, Banks M (2002) Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashion. Nature 415:429–433CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Ernst M, Bulthoff H (2004) Merging the senses into robust percept. Trends Cogn Sci 8:162–169CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Flanders M, Tillery SI, Soechting JF (1992) Early stages in a sensorimotor transformation. Behav Brain Sci 15:209–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ghahramani Z, Wolpert D, Jordan M (1997) Computational models of sensorimotor integration. Adv Psychol 119:117–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Harris CS (1963) Adaptation to displaced vision: visual, motor, or proprioceptive change? Science 140:812–813CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Harris CS (1965) Perceptual adaptation to inverted, reversed, and displaced Vision. Psychol Rev 72:419–444CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Hatada Y, Miall RC, Rossetti Y (2006) Long lasting after-effect of a single prism adaptation: directionally biased shift in proprioception and late onset shift of internal egocentric reference frame. Exp Brain Res 174:189–198CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Hay JC, Pick HL Jr (1966) Visual and proprioceptive adaptation to optical displacement of the visual stimulus. J Exp Psychol 71:150–158CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Helbig H, Ernst M (2007) Optimal integration of shape information from vision and touch. Exp Brain Res 179:595–606CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Jeannerod M (1988) The Neural and Behavioural Organization of Goal-Directed Movements. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  23. Khanafer S, Cressman EK (2014) Sensory integration during reaching: the effects of manipulating visual target availability. Exp Brain Res 232:3833–3846CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Kording KP, Wolpert DM (2004) Bayesian integration in sensorimotor learning. Nature 427:244–247CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Krakauer JW (2009) Motor learning and consolidation: the case of visuomotor rotation. Adv Exp Med Biol 629:405–421CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Krakauer JW, Ghilardi MF, Ghez C (1999) Independent learning of internal models for kinematic and dynamic control of reaching. Nat Neurosci 2:1026–1031CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Krakauer JW, Pine ZM, Ghilardi MF, Ghez C (2000) Learning of visuomotor transformations for vectorial planning of reaching trajectories. J Neurosci 20:8916–8924PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Martin TA, Keating JG, Goodkin HP, Bastian AJ, Thach WT (1996) Throwing while looking through prisms. II. Specificity and storage of multiple gaze-throw calibrations. Brain 119:1199–1211CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Mon-Williams M, Wann J, Jenkinson M, Rushton K (1997) Synaesthesia in the normal limb. Proc Biol Sci 264:1007–1010CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Mostafa AA, Salomonczyk D, Cressman EK, Henriques DY (2014) Intermanual transfer and proprioceptive recalibration following training with translated visual feedback of the hand. Exp Brain Res 232:1639–1651CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Redding GM, Wallace B (1993) Adaptive coordination and alignment of eye and hand. J Motor Behav 25:75–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Redding GM, Wallace B (1996) Adaptive spatial alignment and strategic perceptual motor control. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 22:379–394CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Redding GM, Wallace B (2002) Strategic calibration and spatial alignment: A model from prism adaptation. J Motor Behav 33:401–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Redding GM, Wallace B (2003) Dual prism adaptation: calibration or alignment? J Motor Behav 35:399–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Redding GM, Rossetti Y, Wallace B (2005) Applications of prism adaptation: a tutorial in theory and method. Neurosci Biobehav R 29:431–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Reuschel J, Drewing K, Henriques D, Rosler F, Fiehler K (2010) Optimal integration of visual and proprioceptive movement information for the perception of trajectory geometry. Exp Brain Res 201:853–862CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Sainburg RL, Wang J (2002) Interlimb transfer of visuomotor rotations: Independence of direction and final position information. Exp Brain Res 145:437–447CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Sarlegna F, Sainburg R (2007) The effect of target modality on visual and proprioceptive contributions to the control of movement distance. Exp Brain Res 176:267–280CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Simani MC, McGuire LM, Sabes PN (2007) Visual-shift adaptation is composed of separable sensory and task-dependent effects. J Neurophysiol 98:2827–2841CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. Snijders HJ, Holmes NP, Spence C (2007) Direction-dependent integration of vision and proprioception in reaching under the influence of the mirror illusion. Neuropsychologia 45:496–505CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Sober S, Sabes P (2005) Flexible strategies for sensory integration during motor planning. Nat Neurosci 8:490–497CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. Taylor JA, Ivry RB (2011) Flexible cognitive strategies during motor learning. PLoS Comp Biol 7:e10001096CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Taylor JA, Krakauer JW, Ivry RB (2014) Explicit and implicit contributions to learning in a sensorimotor adaptation task. J Neurosci 34:3023–3032CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. Turnham EJ, Braun DA, Wolpert DM (2012) Facilitation of learning induced by both random and gradual visuomotor task variation. J Neurophysiol 107:1111–1122CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. van Beers R, Sitting A, van Der Gon D (1996) How humans combine simultaneous proprioceptive and visual position information. Exp Brain Res 111:253–261CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. van Beers R, Sitting A, van Der Gon J (1998) The precision of proprioceptive position sense. Exp Brain Res 122:367–377CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. van Beers R, Sitting A, van Der Gon D (1999) Integration of proprioceptive and visual position-information: an experimentally supported model. J Neurophysiol 81:1355–1364CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. van Beers R, Wolpert D, Haggard P (2002) When feeling is more important than seeing in sensorimotor adaptation. Curr Biol 12:834–837CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Vetter P, Goodbody SJ, Wolpert DM (1999) Evidence for an eye-centered spherical representation of the visuomotor map. Neurophysiology 81:935–939CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. von Helmholtz HEF (1910) Handbuch der physiologischen optik, 3rd edn. Voss, Hamburg [Translated by Southall JPC (1962) Physiological optics, vol 3. Dover, New York]Google Scholar
  51. Wang J, Sainburg RL (2005) Adaptation to visuomotor rotations remaps movement vectors, not final positions. J Neurosci 25:4024–4030CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Warren D, Schmitt T (1978) On the plasticity of visual-proprioceptive bias Effects. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 4:302–310CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Wei K, Kording K (2010) Uncertainty of feedback and state estimation determines the speed of motor adaptation. Front Comput Neurosci 4:11PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  54. Wolpert DM, Kawato M (1998) Multiple paired forward and inverse models for motor control. Neural Netw 11:1317–1329CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Wolpert DM, Ghahramani Z, Jordan MI (1995) An internal model for sensorimotor integration. Science 269:1880–1882CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Human KineticsUniversity of OttawaOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations