Advertisement

Psychological Research

, Volume 83, Issue 5, pp 935–950 | Cite as

Contrasting effects of adaptation to a visuomotor rotation on explicit and implicit measures of sensory coupling

  • Miya K. RandEmail author
  • Herbert Heuer
Original Article

Abstract

We previously investigated sensory coupling of the sensed positions of cursor and hand in a cursor-control task and found differential characteristics of implicit and explicit measures of the bias of sensed hand position toward the position of the cursor. The present study further tested whether adaptation to a visuomotor rotation differentially affects these two measures. Participants made center-out reaching movements to remembered targets while looking at a rotated feedback cursor. After sets of practice trials with constant (adaptation condition) or random (control condition) visuomotor rotations, test trials served to assess sensory coupling. In these trials, participants judged the position of the hand at the end of the center-out movement, and the deviation of these judgments from the physical hand positions served as explicit measure of the bias of sensed hand position toward the position of the cursor, whereas the implicit measure was based on the direction of the return movement. The results showed that inter-individual variability of explicitly assessed biases of sensed hand position toward the cursor position was less in the adaptation condition than in the control condition. Conversely, no such changes were observed for the implicit measure of the bias of sensed hand position, revealing contrasting effects of adaptation on the explicit and implicit measures. These results suggest that biases of explicitly sensed hand position reflect sensory coupling of neural representations that are altered by visuomotor adaptation. In contrast, biases of implicitly sensed hand position reflect sensory coupling of neural representations that are unaffected by adaptation.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the German Research Foundation (DFG) (Grant number Ra 2183/1-3). We thank Maleen Greine and Franziska Schywalski for their support in data collection.

Compliance with ethical standards

Funding

This study was funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG) (Grant number Ra 2183/1-3).

Conflict of interest

Miya Rand declares that she has no conflict of interest. Herbert Heuer declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Abeele, S., & Bock, O. (2001a). Mechanisms for sensorimotor adaptation to rotated visual input. Experimental Brain Research, 139, 248–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abeele, S., & Bock, O. (2001b). Sensorimotor adaptation to rotated visual input: Different mechanisms for small versus large rotations. Experimental Brain Research, 140, 407–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bock, O., & Eckmiller, R. (1986). Goal-directed arm movements in absence of visual guidance: Evidence for amplitude rather than position control. Experimental Brain Research, 62, 451–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bresciani, J.-P., Dammeier, F., & Ernst, M. O. (2006). Vision and touch are automatically integrated for the perception of sequences of events. Journal of Vision, 6, 554–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown, L. E., Rosenbaum, D. A., & Sainburg, R. L. (2003a). Limb position drift: Implications for control of posture and movement. Journal of Neurophysiology, 90, 3105–3118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown, L. E., Rosenbaum, D. A., & Sainburg, R. L. (2003b). Movement speed effects on limb position drift. Experimental Brain Research, 153, 266–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buch, E. R., Young, S., & Contreras-Vidal, J. L. (2003). Visuomotor adaptation in normal aging. Learning & Memory, 10, 55–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cheng, K., Shettleworth, S. J., Huttenlocher, J., & Rieser, J. J. (2007). Bayesian integration of spatial information. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 625–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cressman, E. K., & Henriques, D. Y. P. (2009). Sensory recalibration of hand position following visuomotor adaptation. Journal of Neurophysiology, 102, 3505–3518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cressman, E. K., & Henriques, D. Y. P. (2010). Reach adaptation and proprioceptive recalibration following exposure to misaligned sensory input. Journal of Neurophysiology, 103, 1888–1895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Debats, N. B., Ernst, M. O., & Heuer, H. (2017). Perceptual attraction in tool-use: Evidence for a reliability-based weighting mechanism. Journal of Neurophysiology, 117, 1569–1580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dijkerman, H. C., & de Haan, E. H. F. (2007). Somatosensory processes subserving perception and action. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 30, 189–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ernst, M. O. (2006). A Bayesian view on multimodal cue integration. In G. Knoblich, I. M. Thornton, M. Grosjean, & M. Shiffrar (Eds.), Human body perception from the inside out (pp. 105–131). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Ernst, M. O. (2012). Optimal multisensory integration: Assumptions and limits. In B. E. Stein (Ed.), The New Handbook of Multisensory Processes (pp. 1084–1124). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Ernst, M. O., & Bülthoff, H. H. (2004). Merging the senses into a robust percept. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 162–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goble, D. J., Coxon, J. P., Van Impe, A., Geurts, M., Van Hecke, W., Sunaert, S., … Swinnen, S. P. (2012). The neural basis of central proprioceptive processing in older versus younger adults: An important sensory role for right putamen. Human Brain Mapping, 33, 895–908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Harrar, V., & Harris, L. R. (2008). The effect of exposure to asynchronous audio, visual, and tactile stimulus combinations on the perception of simultaneity. Experimental Brain Research, 186, 517–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Harrar, V., Harris, L. R., & Spence, C. (2017). Multisensory integration is independent of perceived simultaneity. Experimental Brain Research, 235, 763–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hatada, Y., Miall, R. C., & Rossetti, Y. (2006). Long-lasting aftereffect of a single prism adaptation: shifts in vision and proprioception are independent. Experimental Brain Research, 173, 415–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hay, J. C., Pick, H. L., & Ikeda, K. (1965). Visual capture produced by prism spectacles. Psychonomic Science, 2, 215–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Heuer, H., Hegele, M., & Rand, M. K. (2013). Age-related variations in the control of electronic tools. In C. M. Schlick, E. Frieling, & J. Wegge (Eds.), Age-Differentiated Work Systems (pp. 369–390). Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Heuer, H., & Sangals, J. (1998). Task-dependent mixtures of coordinate systems in visuomotor transformations. Experimental Brain Research, 119, 224–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Heuer, H., & Sülzenbrück, S. (2012). The influence of the dynamic transformation of a sliding lever on aiming errors. Neuroscience, 207, 137–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Holmes, N. P., Crozier, G., & Spence, C. (2004). When mirrors lie: “Visual capture” of arm position impairs reaching performance. Cognitive, Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience, 4, 193–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Holmes, N. P., & Spence, C. (2005). Visual bias of unseen hand position with a mirror: Spatial and temporal factors. Experimental Brain Research, 166, 489–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Izawa, J., Criscimagna-Hemminger, S. E., & Shadmehr, R. (2012). Cerebellar contributions to reach adaptation and learning sensory consequences of action. Journal of Neuroscience, 32, 4230–4239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kagerer, F. A., Contreras-Vidal, J. L., & Stelmach, G. E. (1997). Adaptation to gradual as compared with sudden visuo-motor distortions. Experimental Brain Research, 115, 557–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kavounoudias, A., Roll, J. P., Anton, J. L., Nazarian, B., Roth, M., & Roll, R. (2008). Proprio-tactile integration for kinesthetic perception: An fMRI study. Neuropsychologia, 46, 567–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kirsch, W., Pfister, R., & Kunde, W. (2016). Spatial action–effect binding. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 78, 133–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Krakauer, J. W., & Mazzoni, P. (2011). Human sensorimotor learning: Adaptation, skill, and beyond. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 21, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Krakauer, J. W., Pine, Z. M., Ghilardi, M. F., & Ghez, C. (2000). Learning of visuomotor transformations for vectorial planning of reaching trajectories. Journal of Neuroscience, 20, 8916–8924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ladwig, S., Sutter, C., & Müsseler, J. (2012). Crosstalk between proximal and distal action effects during tool use. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 220, 10–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ladwig, S., Sutter, C., & Müsseler, J. (2013). Intra- and intermodal integration of discrepant visual and proprioceptive action effects. Experimental Brain Research, 231, 457–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Levene, H. (1960). Robust tests for equality of variances. In I. Olkin, S. G. Ghurye, W. Hoeffding, W. G. Madow, & H. B. Mann (Eds.), Contributions to Probability and Statistics: Essays in Honor of Harold Hotelling (pp. 278–292). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Milner, A. D., & Goodale, M. A. (1995). The Visual Brain in Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Milner, A. D., & Goodale, M. A. (2008). Two visual systems re-viewed. Neuropsychologia, 46, 774–785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Morehead, J. R., Qasim, S. E., Crossley, M. J., & Ivry, R. (2015). Savings upon re-aiming in visuomotor adaptation. Journal of Neuroscience, 35, 14386–14396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Neggers, S. F. W., & Bekkering, H. (2000). Ocular gaze is anchored to the target of an ongoing pointing movement. Journal of Neurophysiology, 83, 639–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Paillard, J. (1991). Motor and representational framing of space. In J. Paillard (Ed.), Brain and Space (pp. 163–182). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Proske, U., & Gandevia, S. C. (2012). The proprioceptive senses: Their roles in signaling body shape, body position and movement, and muscle force. Physiological Reviews, 92, 1651–1697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rand, M. K., & Heuer, H. (2013). Implicit and explicit representations of hand position in tool use. PLoS ONE, 8, e68471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rand, M. K., & Heuer, H. (2016). Effects of reliability and global context on explicit and implicit measures of sensed hand position in cursor-control tasks. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 2056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rand, M. K., & Heuer, H. (in press). Dissociating explicit and implicit measures of sensed hand position in tool use: effect of relative frequency of judging different objects. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics. Google Scholar
  44. Rand, M. K., & Stelmach, G. E. (2010). Effects of hand termination and accuracy constraint on eye-hand coordination during sequential two-segment movements. Experimental Brain Research, 207, 197–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rand, M. K., Wang, L., Müsseler, J., & Heuer, H. (2013). Vision and proprioception in action monitoring by young and older adults. Neurobiology of Aging, 34, 1864–1872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Reber, P. J. (2013). The neural basis of implicit learning and memory: A review of neuropsychological and neuroimaging research. Neuropsychologia, 51, 2026–2042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Reichenbach, A., Thielscher, A., Peer, A., Bülthoff, H. H., & Bresciani, J.-P. (2014). A key region in the human parietal cortex for processing proprioceptive hand feedback during reaching movements. NeuroImage, 84, 615–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rossetti, Y., Desmurget, M., & Prablanc, C. (1995). Vector coding of movement: Vision, proprioception, or both? Journal of Neurophysiology, 74, 457–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schenk, T., Franz, V., & Bruno, N. (2011). Vision-for-perception and vision-for-action: Which model is compatible with the available psychophysical and neuropsychological data? Vision Research, 51, 812–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Shanks, D. R., & St. John, M. F. (1994). Characteristics of dissociable human learning systems. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 17, 367–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Simani, M. C., McGuire, L. M., & Sabes, P. N. (2007). Visual-shift adaptation is composed of separable sensory and task-dependent effects. Journal of Neurophysiology, 98, 2827–2841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Synofzik, M., Lindner, A., & Thier, P. (2008). The cerebellum updates predictions about the visual consequences of one’s behavior. Current Biology, 18, 814–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Van Beers, R. J., Sittig, A. C., & Denier van der Gon, J. J. (1999). Integration of proprioceptive and visual position-information: An experimentally supported model. Journal of Neurophysiology, 81, 1355–1364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Van Beers, R. J., Wolpert, D. M., & Haggard, P. (2002). When feeling is more important than seeing in sensorimotor adaptation. Current Biology, 12, 834–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Van Dam, L. C. J., & Ernst, M. O. (2013). Knowing each random error of our ways, but hardly correcting for it: An instance of optimal performance. PLoS ONE, 8, e78757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Vindras, P., Desmurget, M., Prablanc, C., & Viviani, P. (1998). Pointing errors reflect biases in the perception of the initial hand position. Journal of Neurophysiology, 79, 3290–3294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Welch, R. B. (1978). Perceptual modification. Adapting to altered sensory environments. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  58. Wendker, N., Sack, O. S., & Sutter, C. (2014). Visual target distance, but not visual cursor path length produces shifts in motor behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wilke, C., Synofzik, M., & Lindner, A. (2013). Sensorimotor recalibration depends on attribution of sensory prediction errors to internal causes. PLoS ONE, 8, e54925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Zbib, B., Henriques, D. Y. P., & Cressman, E. K. (2016). Proprioceptive recalibration arises slowly compared to reach adaptation. Experimental Brain Research, 234, 2201–2213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.IfADo, Leibniz Research Centre for Working Environment and Human FactorsDortmundGermany

Personalised recommendations