Advertisement

Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 237, Issue 6, pp 1431–1444 | Cite as

Going offline: differences in the contributions of movement control processes when reaching in a typical versus novel environment

  • Darrin O. Wijeyaratnam
  • Romeo Chua
  • Erin K. CressmanEmail author
Research Article

Abstract

Human movements are remarkably adaptive. We are capable of completing movements in a novel visuomotor environment with similar accuracy to those performed in a typical environment. In the current study, we examined if the control processes underlying movements under typical conditions were different from those underlying novel visuomotor conditions. 16 participants were divided into two groups, one receiving continuous visual feedback during all reaches (CF), and the other receiving terminal feedback regarding movement endpoint (TF). Participants trained in a virtual environment by completing 150 reaches to three targets when (1) a cursor accurately represented their hand motion (i.e., typical environment) and (2) a cursor was rotated 45° clockwise relative to their hand motion (i.e., novel environment). Analyses of within-trial measures across 150 reaching trials revealed that participants were able to demonstrate similar movement outcomes (i.e., movement time and angular errors) regardless of visual feedback or reaching environment by the end of reach training. Furthermore, a reduction in variability across several measures (i.e., reaction time, movement time, time after peak velocity, and jerk score) over time showed that participants improved the consistency of their movements in both reaching environments. However, participants took more time and were less consistent in the timing of initiating their movements when reaching in a novel environment compared to reaching in a typical environment, even at the end of training. As well, angular error variability at different proportions of the movement trajectory was consistently greater when reaching in a novel environment across trials and within a trial. Together, the results suggest a greater contribution of offline control processes and less effective online corrective processes when reaching in a novel environment compared to when reaching in a typical environment.

Keywords

Reaching Visuomotor adaptation Visual feedback Kinematic analysis Movement control 

Notes

Funding

This research was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada awarded to Erin K. Cressman.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

221_2019_5515_MOESM1_ESM.docx (62 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 61 KB)

References

  1. Abahnini K, Proteau L, Temprado JJ (1997) Evidence supporting the importance of peripheral visual information for the directional control of aiming movements. J Mot Behav 29(3):230–242Google Scholar
  2. Aboelnasr EA, Hegazy FA, Altalway HA (2017) Kinematic characteristics of reaching in children with hemiplegic cerebral palsy: a comparative study. Brain Inj 31(1):83–89Google Scholar
  3. Alberts JL, Saling M, Adler CH, Stelmach GE (2000) Disruptions in the reach-to-grasp actions of Parkinson’s patients. Exp Brain Res 134(3):353–362Google Scholar
  4. Batcho CS, Gagné M, Bouyer LJ, Roy JS, Mercier C (2016) Impact of online visual feedback on motor acquisition and retention when learning to reach in a force field. Neuroscience 337:267–275Google Scholar
  5. Bernier P-M, Chua R, Franks IM, Khan MA (2006) Determinants of offline processing of visual information for the control of reaching movements. J Mot Behav 38(5):331–338Google Scholar
  6. Burkitt JJ, Grierson LEM, Straite V, Elliott D, Lyons J (2013) The impact of prior knowledge about visual feedback on motor performance and learning. Adv Phys Educ 3(1):1–9Google Scholar
  7. Cheng DT, Luis M, Tremblay L (2008) Randomizing visual feedback in manual aiming: reminiscence of the previous trial condition and prior knowledge of feedback availability. Exp Brain Res 189(4):403–410Google Scholar
  8. Clower DM, Boussaoud D (2000) Selective use of perceptual recalibration versus visuomotor skill acquisition. J Neurophysiol 84(5):2703–2708Google Scholar
  9. de Grosbois J, Tremblay L (2016) Quantifying online visuomotor feedback utilization in the frequency domain. Behav Res Methods 48(4):1653–1666Google Scholar
  10. de Grosbois J, Tremblay L (2018) Distinct and flexible rates of online control. Psychol Res 82(6):1054–1072Google Scholar
  11. Desmurget M, Grafton S (2000) Forward modeling allows feedback control for fast reaching movements. Trends Cogn Sci 4(11):423–431Google Scholar
  12. Elliott D, Allard F (1985) The utilization of visual feedback information during rapid pointing movements. Q J Exp Psychol Sect A 37(3):407–425Google Scholar
  13. Elliott D, Lee TD (1995) The role of target information on manual-aiming bias. Psychol Res 58(1):2–9Google Scholar
  14. Elliott D, Carson R, Goodman D, Chua R (1991) Discrete vs. continuous visual control of manual aiming. Hum Mov Sci 10:393–418Google Scholar
  15. Elliott D, Binsted G, Heath M (1999) The control of goal-directed limb movements: correcting errors in the trajectory. Hum Mov Sci 18:121–136Google Scholar
  16. Elliott D, Helsen WF, Chua R (2001) A century later: Woodworth’s (1899) two-component model of goal-directed aiming. Psychol Bull 127(3):342–357Google Scholar
  17. Elliott D, Hansen S, Mendoza J, Tremblay L (2004) Learning to optimize speed, accuracy, and energy expenditure: a framework for understanding speed-accuracy relations in goal-directed aiming. J Mot Behav 36(3):339–351Google Scholar
  18. Elliott D, Hansen S, Grierson LEM, Lyons J, Bennett SJ, Hayes SJ (2010) Goal-directed aiming: two components but multiple processes. Psychol Bull 136(6):1023–1044Google Scholar
  19. Elliott D, Dutoy C, Andrew M, Burkitt JJ, Grierson LEM, Lyons JL, … Bennett SJ (2014) The influence of visual feedback and prior knowledge about feedback on vertical aiming strategies. J Mot Behav 46(6):433–443Google Scholar
  20. Elliott D, Lyons J, Hayes SJ, Burkitt JJ, Roberts JW, Grierson LEM, … Bennett SJ (2017) The multiple process model of goal-directed reaching revisited. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 72:95–110Google Scholar
  21. Fernandez-Ruiz J, Wong W, Armstrong IT, Flanagan JR (2011) Relation between reaction time and reach errors during visuomotor adaptation. Behav Brain Res 219:8–14Google Scholar
  22. Gaveau V, Prablanc C, Laurent D, Rossetti Y, Priot A-E (2014) Visuomotor adaptation needs a validation of prediction error by feedback error. Front Human Neurosci 8:880Google Scholar
  23. Ghilardi MF, Gordon J, Ghez C (1995) Learning a visuomotor transformation in a local area of work space produces directional biases in other areas. J Neurophysiol 73(6):2535–2539Google Scholar
  24. Grierson LEM, Elliott D (2008) Kinematic analysis of goal-directed aims made against early and late perturbations: an investigation of the relative influence of two online control processes. Hum Mov Sci 27:839–856Google Scholar
  25. Grierson LEM, Elliott D (2009) Goal-directed aiming and the relative contribution of two online control processes. Am J Psychol 122(3):309–324Google Scholar
  26. Hansen S, Glazebrook CM, Anson JG, Weeks DJ, Elliott D (2006) The influence of advance information about target location and visual feedback on movement planning and execution. Can J Exp Psychol 60(3):200–208Google Scholar
  27. Hay JC, Pick HL (1966) Gaze-contingent prism adaptation: optical and motor factors. J Exp Psychol 72(5):640–648Google Scholar
  28. Heath M (2005) Role of limb and target vision in the online control of memory-guided reaches. Mot Control 9:281–311Google Scholar
  29. Heath M, Hodges NJ, Chua R, Elliott D (1998) On-line control of rapid aiming movements: Unexpected target perturbations and movement kinematics. Can J Exp Psychol 52(4):163–173Google Scholar
  30. Hinder MR, Riek S, Tresilian JR, de Rugy A, Carson RG (2010) Real-time error detection but not error correction drives automatic visuomotor adaptation. Exp Brain Res 201:191–207Google Scholar
  31. Huberdeau DM, Haith AM, Krakauer JW (2015a) Formation of a long-term memory for visuomotor adaptation following only a few trials of practice. J Neurophysiol 114(2):969–977Google Scholar
  32. Huberdeau DM, Krakauer JW, Haith AM (2015b) Dual-process decomposition in human sensorimotor adaptation. Curr Opin Neurobiol 33:71–77Google Scholar
  33. Jeannerod M (1986) Are corrections in accurate arm movements corrective? Prog Brain Res 64(C):353–360Google Scholar
  34. Kantak SS, Winstein CJ (2012) Learning-performance distinction and memory processes for motor skills: a focused review and perspective. Behav Brain Res 228(1):219–231Google Scholar
  35. Khan MA, Elliott D, Coull J, Chua R, Lyons J (2002) Optimal control strategies under different feedback schedules: kinematic evidence. J Mot Behav 34(1):45–57Google Scholar
  36. Khan MA, Lawrence G, Fourkas A, Franks IM, Elliott D, Pembroke S (2003) Online versus offline processing of visual feedback in the control of movement amplitude. Acta Physiol (Oxf) 113:83–97Google Scholar
  37. Khan MA, Franks IM, Elliott D, Lawrence GP, Chua R, Bernier PM et al (2006) Inferring online and offline processing of visual feedback in target-directed movements from kinematic data. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 30:1106–1121Google Scholar
  38. Krakauer JW, Ghilardi M-F, Ghez C (1999) Independent learning of internal models for kinematic and dynamic control of reaching. Nat Neurosci 2(11):1026–1031Google Scholar
  39. Krakauer JW, Pine ZM, Ghilardi M-F, Ghez C (2000) Learning of visuomotor transformations for vectorial planning of reaching trajectories. J Neurosci 20(23):8916–8924Google Scholar
  40. Leow L-A, Gunn R, Marinovic W, Carroll TJ (2017) Estimating the implicit component of visuomotor rotation learning by constraining movement preparation time. J Neurophysiol 118(2):666–676Google Scholar
  41. Maksimovic S, Cressman EK (2018) Long-term retention of proprioceptive recalibration. Neuropsychologia 114(March):65–76Google Scholar
  42. Mendoza JE, Elliott D, Meegan DV, Lyons JL, Welsh TN (2006) The effect of the Müller-Lyer illusion on the planning and control of manual aiming movements. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 32(2):413–422Google Scholar
  43. McDougle SD, Ivry RB, Taylor JA (2016) Taking aim at the cognitive side of learning in sensorimotor adaptation tasks. Trends Cogn Sci 20(7):535–544Google Scholar
  44. Meyer DE, Abrams RA, Kornblum S, Wright CE, Smith JEK (1988) Optimality in human motor performance: Ideal control of rapid aimed movements. Psychol Rev 95(3):340–370Google Scholar
  45. Oldfield RC (1971) The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia 9:97–113Google Scholar
  46. Posner MI, Nissen MJ, Klein RM (1976) Visual dominance: an information-processing account of its origins and significance. Psychol Rev 83(2):157–171Google Scholar
  47. Redding GM, Wallace B (1996) Adaptive spatial alignment and strategic motor control. J Exp Biol Human Percept Perform 22(2):379–394Google Scholar
  48. Redding GM, Wallace B (2002) Strategic calibration and spatial alignment. J Mot Behav 34(2):126–138Google Scholar
  49. Redding GM, Wallace B (2006) Generalization of prism adaptation. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 32(4):1006–1022Google Scholar
  50. Redding GM, Rossetti Y, Wallace B (2005) Applications of prism adaptation: A tutorial in theory and method. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 29(3):431–444Google Scholar
  51. Sainburg RL, Wang J (2002) Interlimb transfer of visuomotor rotations: Independence of direction and final position information. Exp Brain Res 145:437–447Google Scholar
  52. Sarlegna FR, Sainburg RL (2009) The roles of vision and proprioception in the planning of reaching movements. Adv Exp Med Biol 629:317–335Google Scholar
  53. Schmidt RA, Zelaznik HN, Hawkins B, Frank JS, Quinn JT Jr (1979) Motor-output variability: a theory for the accuracy of rapid motor acts. Psychol Rev 86(5):415–451Google Scholar
  54. Scott SH (2016) A functional taxonomy of bottom-up sensory feedback processing for motor actions. Trends Neurosci 39(8):512–526Google Scholar
  55. Shabbott BA, Sainburg RL (2010) Learning a visuomotor rotation: Simultaneous visual and proprioceptive information is crucial for visuomotor remapping. Exp Brain Res 203(1):75–87Google Scholar
  56. Simon A, Bock O (2016) Influence of movement kinematics on visuomotor adaptation. Exp Brain Res 234:3083–3090Google Scholar
  57. Smeets JBJ, van den Dobbelsteen JJ, de Grave DDJ, van Beers RJ, Brenner E (2006) Sensory integration does not lead to sensory calibration. Proc Natl Acad Sci 103(49):18781–18786Google Scholar
  58. Smith MA, Ghazizadeh A, Shadmehr R (2006) Interacting adaptive processes with different timescales underlie short-term motor learning. PLoS Biol 4(6):1035–1043Google Scholar
  59. Taylor JA, Ivry RB (2011) Flexible cognitive strategies during motor learning. PLoS Comput Biol 7(3):e1001096Google Scholar
  60. Taylor JA, Krakauer JW, Ivry RB (2014) Explicit and implicit contributions to learning in a sensorimotor adaptation task. J Neurosci 34(8):3023–3032Google Scholar
  61. Teulings H-L, Contreras-Vidal JL, Stelmach GE, Adler CH (1997) Parkinsonism reduces coordination of fingers, wrist, and arm in fine motor control. Exp Neurol 146(1):159–170Google Scholar
  62. Tremblay L, Hansen S, Kennedy A, Cheng DT (2013) The utility of vision during action: multiple visuomotor processes? J Mot Behav 45(2):91–99Google Scholar
  63. Tseng Y-W, Diedrichsen J, Krakauer JW, Shadmehr R, Bastian AJ (2007) Sensory prediction errors drive cerebellum-dependent adaptation of reaching. J Neurophysiol 98(1):54–62Google Scholar
  64. van der Kooij K, Brenner E, Van Beers RJ, Smeets JBJ (2015) Visuomotor adaptation: how forgetting keeps us conservative. PLoS One 10(2):1–13Google Scholar
  65. Walsh CM, Ling SC, Wang CS, Carnahan H (2009) Concurrent versus terminal feedback: it may be better to wait. Acad Med 84(10):S54–S57Google Scholar
  66. Wang J, Lei Y (2015) Direct-effects and after-effects of visuomotor adaptation with one arm on subsequent performance with the other arm. J Neurophysiol 114(1):468–473Google Scholar
  67. Wolpert DM, Kawato M (1998) Multiple paired forward and inverse models for motor control. Neural Netw 11:1317–1329Google Scholar
  68. Woodworth RS (1899) The best movement for handwriting author(s. Sci New Ser 10(254):679–681Google Scholar
  69. Yamamoto K, Hoffman DS, Strick PL (2006) Rapid and long-lasting plasticity of input-output mapping. J Neurophysiol 96:2797–2801Google Scholar
  70. Zbib B, Henriques DYP, Cressman EK (2016) Proprioceptive recalibration arises slowly compared to reach adaptation. Exp Brain Res 234:2201–2213Google Scholar
  71. Zelaznik HN, Hawkins B, Kisselburgh L (1983) Rapid visual feedback processing in single-aiming movements. J Mot Behav 15(3):217–236Google Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Human KineticsUniversity of OttawaOttawaCanada
  2. 2.School of KinesiologyUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations