» Articles » PMID: 25146571

Sensory Integration During Reaching: the Effects of Manipulating Visual Target Availability

Overview
Journal Exp Brain Res
Specialty Neurology
Date 2014 Aug 23
PMID 25146571
Citations 2
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

When using visual and proprioceptive information to plan a reach, it has been proposed that the brain combines these cues to estimate the object and/or limb's location. Specifically, according to the maximum-likelihood estimation (MLE) model, sensory inputs are combined such that more reliable inputs are assigned a greater weight (Ernst and Banks in Nature 415:429-433, 2002). In this paper, we examined if the brain is able to adjust which sensory cue it weights the most. Specifically, we asked if the brain changes how it weights sensory information when the availability of a visual cue is manipulated. Twelve healthy subjects reached to visual (V), proprioceptive (P), or visual + proprioceptive (VP) targets under different visual delay conditions (e.g., on V and VP trials, the visual target was available for the entire reach; it was removed with the go signal, or it was removed 1 s before the go signal). To establish which sensory cue subjects weighted the most, we compared endpoint positions achieved on V and P reaches to VP reaches. Results indicated that subjects combined visual and proprioceptive cues in accordance with the MLE model when reaching to VP targets. Moreover, subjects' reaching errors to visual targets increased with longer visual delays (particularly in the vertical direction). However, there was no change in reach variability with longer delays, and subjects did not reweight visual information as the availability of visual information was manipulated. Thus, a change in visual environment is not sufficient to cause the brain to reweight how it processes sensory information.

Citing Articles

Multisensory Integration in Stroke Patients: A Theoretical Approach to Reinterpret Upper-Limb Proprioceptive Deficits and Visual Compensation.

Bernard-Espina J, Beraneck M, Maier M, Tagliabue M Front Neurosci. 2021; 15:646698.

PMID: 33897359 PMC: 8058201. DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2021.646698.


Adaptation to proprioceptive targets following visuomotor adaptation.

Flannigan J, Posthuma R, Lombardo J, Murray C, Cressman E Exp Brain Res. 2017; 236(2):419-432.

PMID: 29209829 DOI: 10.1007/s00221-017-5141-y.

References
1.
van Beers R . Motor learning is optimally tuned to the properties of motor noise. Neuron. 2009; 63(3):406-17. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2009.06.025. View

2.
Foxe J, Wylie G, Martinez A, Schroeder C, Javitt D, Guilfoyle D . Auditory-somatosensory multisensory processing in auditory association cortex: an fMRI study. J Neurophysiol. 2002; 88(1):540-3. DOI: 10.1152/jn.2002.88.1.540. View

3.
Vindras P, Viviani P . Frames of reference and control parameters in visuomanual pointing. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1998; 24(2):569-91. DOI: 10.1037//0096-1523.24.2.569. View

4.
Block H, Bastian A . Cerebellar involvement in motor but not sensory adaptation. Neuropsychologia. 2012; 50(8):1766-75. PMC: 3389289. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2012.03.034. View

5.
Mon-Williams M, Wann J, Jenkinson M, Rushton K . Synaesthesia in the normal limb. Proc Biol Sci. 1997; 264(1384):1007-10. PMC: 1688538. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.1997.0139. View