Amending Ongoing Upper-Limb Reaches: Visual and Proprioceptive Contributions?

Abstract

In order to maximize the precise completion of voluntary actions, humans can theoretically utilize both visual and proprioceptive information to plan and amend ongoing limb trajectories. Although vision has been thought to be a more dominant sensory modality, research has shown that sensory feedback may be processed as a function of its relevance and reliability. As well, theoretical models of voluntary action have suggested that both vision and proprioception can be used to prepare online trajectory amendments. However, empirical evidence regarding the use of proprioception for online control has come from indirect manipulations from the sensory feedback (i.e., without directly perturbing the afferent information; e.g., visual–proprioceptive mismatch). In order to directly assess the relative contributions of visual and proprioceptive feedback to the online control of voluntary actions, direct perturbations to both vision (i.e., liquid crystal goggles) and proprioception (i.e., tendon vibration) were implemented in two experiments. The first experiment employed the manipulations while participants simply performed a rapid goal-directed movement (30 cm amplitude). Results from this first experiment yielded no significant evidence that proprioceptive feedback contributed to online control processes. The second experiment employed an imperceptible target jump to elicit online trajectory amendments. Without or with tendon vibration, participants still corrected for the target jumps. The current study provided more evidence of the importance of vision for online control but little support for the importance of proprioception for online limb–target regulation mechanisms.

Visual and proprioceptive feedback mechanisms of precision manual motor control in autism spectrum disorder

“…Vision is dominant for visually-guided upper limb and precision motor behaviors [29][30][31], though secondary sources also contribute to the re nement of behavioral output [52,53], consistent with our nding that TD controls showed increased force variability when proprioception was inaccurate. Individuals with ASD and TD controls showed similar changes in force variability when visual feedback was manipulated demonstrating that both groups used the primary feedback source during precision gripping.…”

“…To test this hypothesis, the present study manipulated visual and proprioceptive feedback within a visually guided precision gripping task to assess how each feedback source in uenced motor control in individuals with ASD. The precision gripping test used here involves continuous visual feedback, which has been shown to be the primary sensory feedback source for online control of visually-guided upper limb movements [29][30][31]. We expected individuals with ASD would show increased variability and regularity during precision gripping relative to controls, especially when visual (primary) feedback was enhanced or degraded.…”

Rapid online corrections for upper limb reaches to perturbed somatosensory targets: evidence for non-visual sensorimotor transformation processes

“…This time may be too late to use visual feedback effectively (e.g. Kennedy et al, 2015) but may still be viable for the use of somatosensory information (Goodman et al 2018;Redon et al 1991). Perturbations before movement onset were included as a control condition to compare the corrections that resulted from planning and online control processes between somatosensory and visual conditions.…”

Accuracy instructions differently modulate visual and nonvisual contributions to ongoing reaches.

“…This second peak was proposed to represent a nonvisual process because its relative contribution to performance was found to increase in the absence, rather than in the presence, of online vision. Although there is ample evidence that proprioception can mediate online control processes (e.g., Goodman et al, 2018; Gosselin-Kessiby, Messier, & Kalaska, 2008), de Grosbois and Tremblay (2018b) proposed that this second peak may reflect a strategic change in the manner in which the reaching movements were planned and controlled. Indeed, strategic changes in movement planning have been shown to alter the contributions of online control processes (e.g., Roberts, Burkitt, Elliott, & Lyons, 2016).…”