Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 237, Issue 5, pp 1303–1313 | Cite as

Movements following force-field adaptation are aligned with altered sense of limb position

  • Hiroki Ohashi
  • Ruy Valle-Mena
  • Paul L. Gribble
  • David J. OstryEmail author
Research Article


Previous work has shown that motor learning is associated with changes to both movements and to the somatosensory perception of limb position. In an earlier study that motivates the current work, it appeared that following washout trials, movements did not return to baseline but rather were aligned with associated changes to sensed limb position. Here, we provide a systematic test of this relationship, examining the idea that adaptation-related changes to sensed limb position and to the path of the limb are linked, not only after washout trials but at all stages of the adaptation process. We used a force-field adaptation paradigm followed by washout trials in which subjects performed movements without visual feedback of the limb. Tests of sensed limb position were conducted at each phase of adaptation, specifically before and after baseline movements in a null field, after force-field adaptation, and following washout trials in a null field. As in previous work, sensed limb position changed in association with force-field adaptation. At each stage of adaptation, we observed a correlation between the sensed limb position and associated path of the limb. At a group level, there were differences between the clockwise and counter-clockwise conditions. However, whenever there were changes in sensed limb position, movements following washout did not return to baseline. This suggests that adaptation in sensory and motor systems is not independent processes but rather sensorimotor adaptation is linked to sensory change. Sensory change and limb movement remain in alignment throughout adaptation such that the path of the limb is aligned with the altered sense of limb position.


Sensory plasticity Motor learning Force-field adaptation Somatosensory perception 



This work was supported by grants the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development R01HD075740 and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC).


  1. ’t Hart BM, Henriques DY (2016) Separating predicted and perceived sensory consequences of motor learning. PLoS One 11:e0163556. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrew D, Yielder P, Murphy B (2015) Do pursuit movement tasks lead to differential changes in early somatosensory evoked potentials related to motor learning compared with typing tasks? J Neurophysiol 113:1156–1164. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arce-McShane FI, Hatsopoulos NG, Lee JC, Ross CF, Sessle BJ (2014) Modulation dynamics in the orofacial sensorimotor cortex during motor skill acquisition. J Neurosci 34:5985–5997. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernardi NF, Darainy M, Ostry DJ (2015) Somatosensory contribution to the initial stages of human motor learning. J Neurosci 35:14316–14326. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bishop CM (2006) Pattern recognition and machine learning. Information science and statistics. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown LE, Wilson ET, Goodale MA, Gribble PL (2007) Motor force field learning influences visual processing of target motion. J Neurosci 27:9975–9983. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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 232:2073–2086. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cordo P, Gurfinkel VS, Bevan L, Kerr GK (1995) Proprioceptive consequences of tendon vibration during movement. J Neurophysiol 74:1675–1688. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cressman EK, Henriques DY (2009) Sensory recalibration of hand position following visuomotor adaptation. J Neurophysiol 102:3505–3518. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cressman EK, Henriques DY (2010) Reach adaptation and proprioceptive recalibration following exposure to misaligned sensory input. J Neurophysiol 103:1888–1895. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Darainy M, Vahdat S, Ostry DJ (2013) Perceptual learning in sensorimotor adaptation. J Neurophysiol 110:2152–2162. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ghez C, Gordon J, Ghilardi MF (1995) Impairments of reaching movements in patients without proprioception. II. Effects of visual information on accuracy. J Neurophysiol 73:361–372. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Haith AM, Jackson CP, Miall RC, Vijayakumar S (2009) Unifying the sensory and motor components of sensorimotor adaptation. In: Advances in neural information processing systems, pp 593–600Google Scholar
  14. Haith AM, Huberdeau DM, Krakauer JW (2015) The influence of movement preparation time on the expression of visuomotor learning and savings. J Neurosci 35:5109–5117. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Harris CS (1963) Adaptation to displaced vision: visual, motor, or proprioceptive change? Science 140:812–813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Harris CS (1965) Perceptual adaptation to inverted, reversed, and displaced vision. Psychol Rev 72:419–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hatada Y, Miall RC, Rossetti Y (2006a) Long lasting aftereffect of a single prism adaptation: directionally biased shift in proprioception and late onset shift of internal egocentric reference frame. Exp Brain Res 174:189–198. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hatada Y, Rossetti Y, Miall RC (2006b) Long-lasting aftereffect of a single prism adaptation: shifts in vision and proprioception are independent. Exp Brain Res 173:415–424. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Iriki A, Pavlides C, Keller A, Asanuma H (1989) Long-term potentiation in the motor cortex. Science 245:1385–1387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ito T, Coppola JH, Ostry DJ (2016) Speech motor learning changes the neural response to both auditory and somatosensory signals. Sci Rep 6:25926. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Keller A, Iriki A, Asanuma H (1990a) Identification of neurons producing long-term potentiation in the cat motor cortex: intracellular recordings and labeling. J Comp Neurol 300:47–60. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Keller A, Pavlides C, Asanuma H (1990b) Long-term potentiation in the cat somatosensory cortex. Neuroreport 1:49–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Krakauer JW, Ghez C, Ghilardi MF (2005) Adaptation to visuomotor transformations: consolidation, interference, and forgetting. J Neurosci 25:473–478. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lametti DR, Rochet-Capellan A, Neufeld E, Shiller DM, Ostry DJ (2014) Plasticity in the human speech motor system drives changes in speech perception. J Neurosci 34:10339–10346. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mattar AA, Darainy M, Ostry DJ (2013) Motor learning and its sensory effects: time course of perceptual change and its presence with gradual introduction of load. J Neurophysiol 109:782–791. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nasir SM, Ostry DJ (2009) Auditory plasticity and speech motor learning. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:20470–20475. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nasir SM, Darainy M, Ostry DJ (2013) Sensorimotor adaptation changes the neural coding of somatosensory stimuli. J Neurophysiol 109:2077–2085. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nourouzpour N, Salomonczyk D, Cressman EK, Henriques DY (2015) Retention of proprioceptive recalibration following visuomotor adaptation. Exp Brain Res 233:1019–1029. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Orban de Xivry JJ, Ahmadi-Pajouh MA, Harran MD, Salimpour Y, Shadmehr R (2013) Changes in corticospinal excitability during reach adaptation in force fields. J Neurophysiol 109:124–136. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ostry DJ, Darainy M, Mattar AA, Wong J, Gribble PL (2010) Somatosensory plasticity and motor learning. J Neurosci 30:5384–5393. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pleger B, Schwenkreis P, Dinse HR, Ragert P, Hoffken O, Malin JP, Tegenthoff M (2003) Pharmacological suppression of plastic changes in human primary somatosensory cortex after motor learning. Exp Brain Res 148:525–532. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Purcell DW, Munhall KG (2006) Adaptive control of vowel formant frequency: evidence from real-time formant manipulation. J Acoust Soc Am 120:966–977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sakamoto T, Porter LL, Asanuma H (1987) Long-lasting potentiation of synaptic potentials in the motor cortex produced by stimulation of the sensory cortex in the cat: a basis of motor learning. Brain Res 413:360–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Salomonczyk D, Cressman EK, Henriques DY (2011) Proprioceptive recalibration following prolonged training and increasing distortions in visuomotor adaptation. Neuropsychologia 49:3053–3062. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Salomonczyk D, Henriques DY, Cressman EK (2012) Proprioceptive recalibration in the right and left hands following abrupt visuomotor adaptation. Exp Brain Res 217:187–196. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shadmehr R, Mussa-Ivaldi FA (1994) Adaptive representation of dynamics during learning of a motor task. J Neurosci 14:3208–3224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Shen Y, Richards VM (2012) A maximum-likelihood procedure for estimating psychometric functions: thresholds, slopes, and lapses of attention. J Acoust Soc Am 132:957–967. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Smith MA, Ghazizadeh A, Shadmehr R (2006) Interacting adaptive processes with different timescales underlie short-term motor learning. PLoS Biol 4:e179. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Statton MA, Vazquez A, Morton SM, Vasudevan EVL, Bastian AJ (2017) Making Sense of Cerebellar Contributions to Perceptual and Motor Adaptation Cerebellum
  40. Vahdat S, Darainy M, Milner TE, Ostry DJ (2011) Functionally specific changes in resting-state sensorimotor networks after motor learning. J Neurosci 31:16907–16915. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Vahdat S, Darainy M, Ostry DJ (2014) Structure of plasticity in human sensory and motor networks due to perceptual learning. J Neurosci 34:2451–2463. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wilkinson DA (1971) Visual-motor control loop: a linear system? J Exp Psychol 89:250–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wong JD, Wilson ET, Gribble PL (2011) Spatially selective enhancement of proprioceptive acuity following motor learning. J Neurophysiol 105:2512–2521. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zbib B, Henriques DY, Cressman EK (2016) Proprioceptive recalibration arises slowly compared to reach adaptation. Exp Brain Res 234:2201–2213. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hiroki Ohashi
    • 1
  • Ruy Valle-Mena
    • 1
  • Paul L. Gribble
    • 1
    • 2
  • David J. Ostry
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Haskins LaboratoriesNew HavenUSA
  2. 2.Western UniversityLondonCanada
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations