2022
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-12022-w
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Age-related changes in visuo-proprioceptive processing in perceived body position

Abstract: This study investigated age-related change in visuo-proprioceptive processing in the perceived body position using mirror hand/foot illusions, focusing on its temporal characteristics, its dependency on body parts, and its association with older adults’ fall risk. Either immediately or 15 s after the exposure to the mirror-induced inconsistency of visuo-proprioceptive signals regarding the right hand or foot position, participants performed a reaching task using the unseen, illusion-affected hand or foot. Resu… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

2
5
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

1
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 58 publications
2
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The result of the body position localization task, where the older group exhibited greater proprioceptive drift than the younger group, corroborates with a previous study that compared the proprioceptive drift caused by the mirror illusion in younger and older adults (Teramoto, 2022). It can be surmised that this difference may have been influenced by how multisensory integration changes with aging.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 89%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…The result of the body position localization task, where the older group exhibited greater proprioceptive drift than the younger group, corroborates with a previous study that compared the proprioceptive drift caused by the mirror illusion in younger and older adults (Teramoto, 2022). It can be surmised that this difference may have been influenced by how multisensory integration changes with aging.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 89%
“…For the planned analysis of interaction effects, the simple effect of time was not significant in either image conditions in the younger group (sync: F(1, 28) = 3.21, p = .084, ηp 2 = .103, 95% CI [.82, 7.75]; async: F(1, 28) = 1.36, p = .253, ηp 2 = .046, 95% CI [-6.39, .69]), or in the older group (sync: F(1, 23) = .01, p = .994, ηp 2 < .001, 95% CI [-5.11, 5.06]; async: F(1, 23) = .47, p = .501, ηp 2 = .020, 95% CI [-3.11, 8.58]). However, given that the 95% CI does not include .0 in the sync condition in the younger group, it can be inferred that the temporal characteristics of body perception were similar to the previous study (Teramoto, 2022). Regarding the simple effect of the image condition, only under the 0 s condition was proprioceptive drift in the sync condition significantly larger than in the async condition, in the younger group (0 s: F(1, 28) = 6.61, p = .016, ηp 2 = .191, 95% CI [2.88,10.30]; 30 s: F(1, 28) = .06, p = .809, ηp 2 = .002, 95% CI [-3.77, 2.68]), and also in the older group (0 s: F(1, 23) = .93, p = .345, ηp 2 = .039, 95% CI [-6.74, 1.38]; 30 s: F(1, 23) < .01, p = .968, ηp 2 < .001, 95% CI [-2.81, 2.97]).…”
Section: Proprioceptive Driftsupporting
confidence: 61%
See 3 more Smart Citations