The Influence of Motor Task on Tactile Suppression During Action

  • Nienke B. Debats
  • Marieke Rohde
  • Catharina Glowania
  • Anna Oppenborn
  • Marc O. Ernst
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9774)

Abstract

Movement of a limb substantially decreases the intensity and sensitivity with which tactile stimuli on that limb are perceived. This movement-related tactile suppression likely interferes with performance in motor tasks that require the precise evaluation of tactile feedback, such as the adjustment of grip forces during grasping. Therefore, we hypothesise that suppression might be stronger for stimuli that are irrelevant to successful performance in a given motor task. To test this hypothesis, we measured participants’ perception of tactile intensity while performing different motor tasks. We investigated perception of both supra-threshold stimuli (Exp. 1: intensity discrimination) and of stimuli close to the detection threshold (Exp. 2: detection). We compared tactile perception between two grasping conditions (active, tactile inputs relevant), a condition where participants pointed in the air (active, tactile inputs irrelevant) and a static condition (baseline). In both experiments, we observed tactile suppression in all three movement conditions but not the predicted attenuation of tactile suppression in the grasp conditions. Contrary to our hypothesis, there was even an amplification of tactile suppression in the grasping conditions of Exp. 1, which might be related to the movement velocity. In conclusion, we did not find evidence that motor tasks modulate the strength of tactile suppression. Our results further suggest that it is important to control for possibly confounding variables, such as movement velocity and laterality, in this line of research.

Keywords

Tactile suppression Active touch Motor behaviour 

References

  1. 1.
    Brozzoli, C., Pavani, F., Urquizar, C., Cardinali, L., Farnè, A.: Grasping actions remap peripersonal space. NeuroReport 20(3), 913–917 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chapman, C.E., Bushnell, M.C., Miron, D., Duncan, G.H., Lund, J.P.: Sensory perception during movement in man. Exp. Brain Res. 68(3), 516–524 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Colino, F.L., Buckingham, G., Cheng, D.T., van Donkelaar, P., Binsted, G.: Tactile gating in a reaching and grasping task. Physiol. Rep. 2(3), e00267 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cybulska-Klosowicz, A., Meftah, E.M., Raby, M., Lemieux, M.L., Chapman, C.E.: A critical speed for gating of tactile detection during voluntary movement. Exp. Brain Res. 210(2), 291–301 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Debats, N.B., Kingma, I., Beek, P.J., Smeets, J.B.J.: Moving the weber fraction: the perceptual precision for moment of inertia increases with exploration force. PLoS ONE 7(9), e42941 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Drewing, K.: After experience with the task humans actively optimize shape discrimination in touch by utilizing effects of exploratory movement direction. Acta Psychol. 141(3), 295–303 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Drewing, K., Kaim, L.: Haptic shape perception from force and position signals varies with exploratory movement direction and the exploring finger. Attention Percept. Psychophys. 71(5), 1174–1184 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Garland, H.T., Angel, R.W.: Modulation of tactile sensitivity during movement. Neurology 24(4), 361 (1974)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hautus, M.J.: Corrections for extreme proportions and their biasing effects on estimated values of \(d^\prime \). Behav. Res. Methods Instrum. Comput. 27(1), 46–51 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Juravle, G., Deubel, H., Tan, H.Z., Spence, C.: Changes in tactile sensitivity over the time-course of a goal-directed movement. Behav. Brain Res. 208(2), 391–401 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Juravle, G., McGlone, F., Spence, C.: Context-dependent changes in tactile perception during movement execution. Front. Psychol. 4(913) (2013)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kleiner, M., Brainard, D., Pelli, D.: What’s new in psychtoolbox-3? In: Abstract Supplement of the 30th European Conference on Visual Perception (ECVP), vol. 36, p. 14 (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lederman, S.J., Klatzky, R.L.: Hand movements: a window into haptic object recognition. Cogn. Psychol. 19(3), 342–368 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Milne, R.J., Aniss, A.M., Kay, N.E., Gandevia, S.C.: Reduction in perceived intensity of cutaneous stimuli during movement: a quantitative study. Exp. Brain Res. 70(3), 569–576 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Plaisier, M.A., van Dam, L.C.J., Glowania, C., Ernst, M.O.: Exploration mode affects visuohaptic integration of surface orientation. J. Vis. 14(13), 22 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schmidt, R.F., Torebjörk, H.E., Schady, W.J.L.: Gating of tactile input from the hand. Exp. Brain Res. 79(1), 103–108 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Williams, S.R., Chapman, C.E.: Time course and magnitude of movement-related gating of tactile detection in humans. II. Effects of stimulus intensity. J. Neurophysiol. 84(2), 863–875 (2000)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nienke B. Debats
    • 1
    • 2
  • Marieke Rohde
    • 2
    • 3
  • Catharina Glowania
    • 1
    • 2
  • Anna Oppenborn
    • 1
  • Marc O. Ernst
    • 2
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Cognitive NeuroscienceUniversity of BielefeldBielefeldGermany
  2. 2.Center for Cognitive Interaction Technology (CITEC)University of BielefeldBielefeldGermany
  3. 3.AFFS Affective Signals GmbHBerlinGermany
  4. 4.Department of Applied Cognitive PsychologyUniversity of UlmUlmGermany

Personalised recommendations