Adaptation of hand movements to double-step targets and to distorted visual feedback: Evidence for shared mechanisms

Schmitz, Gerd; Bock, Otmar; Grigorova, Valentina; Borisova, Steliana

doi:10.1016/j.humov.2011.08.003

Cited by 4 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As during the use of a computer mouse, the hand was not concealed from view. This arrangement was similar to those of other studies, which reported robust and persisting adaptation Grigorova et al 2013;Schmitz et al 2010Schmitz et al , 2012.…”

Section: Sensorimotor Adaptation: Apparatussupporting

confidence: 91%

“…1). A target spacing of 45° had been chosen to enhance the comparability to earlier studies on directional selectivity of adaptation to rotated feedback (Bock and Schmitz 2011;Krakauer et al 2000) and to double steps (Schmitz et al 2010) as well as to a study that had investigated transfer between both adaptation methods (Schmitz et al 2012). Targets disappeared when they had been reached by a cursor of 0.5 cm radius for a cumulative time of 750 ms. During movements without cursor feedback, targets disappeared after a constant interval of 3000 ms. Motion of the screen cursor was metrically equivalent to the motion of the stylus on the tablet.…”

Section: Stimulimentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, doublestep adaptation proceeds slower and is less complete than adaptation to rotated feedback (Schmitz et al 2012), and subjects can only adapt to small double-step sizes (Schmitz et al 2010), but to larger feedback rotations (e.g., Abeele and Bock 2001). As shown in Fig.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…In a first step, Schmitz et al (2012) showed that transfer between both adaptation methods is complete, suggesting that they share adaptive mechanisms. However, doublestep adaptation proceeds slower and is less complete than adaptation to rotated feedback (Schmitz et al 2012), and subjects can only adapt to small double-step sizes (Schmitz et al 2010), but to larger feedback rotations (e.g., Abeele and Bock 2001).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Subjects adapted first their hand movements to a rotation of feedback and then to double steps or vice versa. Schmitz et al (2012) had reported complete transfer between these types of adaptation; thus, fundamental interference was expected.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Interference between adaptation to double steps and adaptation to rotated feedback in spite of differences in directional selectivity

Schmitz

2016

Exp Brain Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two key features of sensorimotor adaptation are the directional selectivity of adaptive changes and the interference of adaptations to opposite directions. The present study investigated whether directional selectivity and interference of adaptation are related to executive functions and whether these phenomena differ between two methods for visuomotor adaptation. Subjects adapted at three target directions to clockwise or counterclockwise rotated feedback or to clockwise or counterclockwise target displacements (double steps). Both adaptation methods induce rotations of movement trajectories into the same direction, but provide visual information differently. The results showed that adaptation progressed differently between three targets. When movements adapted clockwise, adaptation was best at the most clockwise located target, and when movements adapted counterclockwise, it was best at the most counterclockwise located target, suggesting that spatial generalization between target directions is related to the direction of motor adaptation. The two adaptation methods produced different adaptation patterns, which indicate a further impact of visual information. A second adaptation to the other and opposite-directed discordance was worse than naive adaptation and washed out the aftereffects from the first adaptation, confirming that both adaptation methods interfered. Executive functions were significant covariate for overall interference and interference of target-specific adaptation. The results suggest that directional selectivity of adaptation is shaped by the direction of motor adaptation and the visual information provided. The interference of both adaptation methods indicates that they share adaptive mechanisms for recalibration. The interference is the lower the better subjects are able to cognitively switch between tasks and to inhibit prepotent responses. Therefore, cognitive functions seem to be involved in the inhibition of non-adequate sensorimotor responses.

show abstract

Section: Sensorimotor Adaptation: Apparatussupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Stimulimentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Interference between adaptation to double steps and adaptation to rotated feedback in spite of differences in directional selectivity

Schmitz

2016

Exp Brain Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Correlations between executive functions and adaptation to incrementally increasing sensorimotor discordances

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Alternating Adaptation of Eye and Hand Movements to Opposite Directed Double Steps

Schmitz

Grigorova

2016

Journal of Motor Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Eye and hand movements can adapt to a variety of sensorimotor discordances. Studies on adaptation of movement directions suggest that the oculomotor and the hand motor system access the same adaptive mechanism related to the polarity of a discordance, because concurrent adaptations to opposite directed discordances strongly interfere. The authors scrutinized whether participants adapt their hand and eye movements to opposite directions (clockwise/counterclockwise) when both motor systems are alternatingly exposed to opposite directed double steps, and whether such adaptation is influenced by the allocation of effector to adaptation direction. The results showed that hand and eye movements adapted to opposite directions, but adaptation was biased to the counterclockwise direction. Aftereffects emerged nearly unbiased and independently for both motor systems. The authors conclude that the oculomotor and the hand motor system use independent mechanisms when they adapt to opposite polarities, although they interact during adaptation or concurrent performance.

show abstract

Adaptation of hand movements to double-step targets and to distorted visual feedback: Evidence for shared mechanisms

Cited by 4 publications

References 47 publications

Interference between adaptation to double steps and adaptation to rotated feedback in spite of differences in directional selectivity

Interference between adaptation to double steps and adaptation to rotated feedback in spite of differences in directional selectivity

Correlations between executive functions and adaptation to incrementally increasing sensorimotor discordances

Alternating Adaptation of Eye and Hand Movements to Opposite Directed Double Steps

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About