Active versus passive proprioceptive straight-ahead pointing in normal subjects

Chokron, Sylvie; Colliot, Pascale; Atzeni, Thierry; Ohlmann, Théophile

doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2004.02.015

Cited by 27 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…When vision is available to the patient (visual, and visual-proprioceptive straightahead), the AEs are preserved. This result is in line with findings suggesting a cerebellar involvement in active (rather than passive) proprioceptive tasks (Bhanpuri et al, 2013), such as the present proprioceptive straight ahead, that involves an upper limb movement by the participant (Chokron et al, 2004).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Restoring abnormal aftereffects of prismatic adaptation through neuromodulation

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Restoring abnormal aftereffects of prismatic adaptation through neuromodulation

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Limb position estimates are more accurate during active versus passive movements, likely due to contributions from proprioception and efferent information (Chokron, Colliot, Atzeni, Bartolomeo, & Ohlmann, 2004; Paillard & Brouchon, 1968; van Beers et al, 2002; Welch, Widawski, Harrington, & Warren, 1979). In conditions with no movement, the proprioceptive estimate of the limb degrades over time (Brown, Rosenbaum, & Sainburg, 2003; Wann & Ibrahim, 1992) resulting in a greater reliance on visual information (Holmes & Spence, 2005a).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The influence of embodiment on multisensory integration using the mirror box illusion

Medina

Khurana

Coslett

2015

Consciousness and Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examined the relationship between subcomponents of embodiment and multisensory integration using a mirror box illusion. The participants’ left hand was positioned against the mirror, while their right hidden hand was positioned 12″, 6″, or 0″ from the mirror – creating a conflict between visual and proprioceptive estimates of limb position in some conditions. After synchronous tapping, asynchronous tapping, or no movement of both hands, participants gave position estimates for the hidden limb and filled out a brief embodiment questionnaire. We found a relationship between different subcomponents of embodiment and illusory displacement towards the visual estimate. Illusory visual displacement was positively correlated with feelings of deafference in the asynchronous and no movement conditions, whereas it was positive correlated with ratings of visual capture and limb ownership in the synchronous and no movement conditions. These results provide evidence for dissociable contributions of different aspects of embodiment to multisensory integration.

show abstract

“…Therefore, it is important that we identify and understand how the central nervous system (CNS) processes and uses sensory information about the body. When reaching to visual or proprioceptive targets, where the reaching hand begins in space can affect reach endpoints (Chokron & Bartolomeo, 1997;Chokron, Colliot, Atzeni, Bartolomeo, & Ohlmann, 2004;Chokron et al, 2002;Farne, Ponti, & Ladavas, 1998;Khoshnoodi, Motiei-Langroudi, Omrani, Ghaderi-Pakdell, & Abbassian, 2006;Sarlegna & Sainburg, 2007). For example, when the reaching hand begins closer to the body (or farther from the body), participants' reach endpoints are also closer to the body (or farther from the body, Sarlegna & Sainburg, 2007).…”

mentioning

confidence: 96%

Reach endpoint errors do not vary with movement path of the proprioceptive target

Jones

Byrne

Fiehler

et al. 2012

Journal of Neurophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research has shown that reach endpoints vary with the starting position of the reaching hand and the location of the reach target in space. We examined the effect of movement direction of a proprioceptive target-hand, immediately preceding a reach, on reach endpoints to that target. Participants reached to visual, proprioceptive (left target-hand), or visual-proprioceptive targets (left target-hand illuminated for 1 s prior to reach onset) with their right hand. Six sites served as starting and final target locations (35 target movement directions in total). Reach endpoints do not vary with the movement direction of the proprioceptive target, but instead appear to be anchored to some other reference (e.g., body). We also compared reach endpoints across the single and dual modality conditions. Overall, the pattern of reaches for visual-proprioceptive targets resembled those for proprioceptive targets, while reach precision resembled those for the visual targets. We did not, however, find evidence for integration of vision and proprioception based on a maximum-likelihood estimator in these tasks.

show abstract

Active versus passive proprioceptive straight-ahead pointing in normal subjects

Cited by 27 publications

References 13 publications

Restoring abnormal aftereffects of prismatic adaptation through neuromodulation

Restoring abnormal aftereffects of prismatic adaptation through neuromodulation

The influence of embodiment on multisensory integration using the mirror box illusion

Reach endpoint errors do not vary with movement path of the proprioceptive target

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About