Advertisement

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

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Visuomotor adaptation Visual target Proprioceptive target Sensory integration 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Funding

Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (EKC).

References

  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