Integration of proprioceptive and visual feedback during online control of reaching

Kasuga, Shoko; Crevecoeur, Frédéric; Cross, Kevin P.; Balalaie, Parsa; Scott, Stephen H.

doi:10.1152/jn.00639.2020

Cited by 27 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 59 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…bodyversus world-centred; [52]), accuracy [53] and processing delay [49,54]. Thus, motor microregulations would now depend on a more complex mixture of predictive and feedback mechanisms, the latter operating on weighted estimation of vision and proprioception [52,53,55,56], which will eventually influence the dynamics of sensorimotor control loops. It is worth noting that the partial alternation of submovements observed in the solo task with eyes open (in-phase coordination only) also highlights a possible asymmetry between the right (dominant) and left (non-dominant) hands.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The microstructure of intra- and interpersonal coordination

Nazzaro,

Emanuele,

Laroche

et al. 2023

Proc. R. Soc. B.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Movements are naturally composed of submovements, i.e. recurrent speed pulses (2–3 Hz), possibly reflecting intermittent feedback-based motor adjustments. In visuomotor (unimanual) synchronization tasks, partners alternate submovements over time, indicating mutual coregulation. However, it is unclear whether submovement coordination is organized differently between and within individuals. Indeed, different types of information may be variably exploited for intrapersonal and interpersonal coordination. Participants performed a series of bimanual tasks alone or in pairs, with or without visual feedback (solo task only). We analysed the relative timing of submovements between their own hands or between their own hands and those of their partner. Distinct coordinative structures emerged at the submovement level depending on the relevance of visual feedback. Specifically, the relative timing of submovements (between partners/effectors) shifts from alternation to simultaneity and a mixture of both when coordination is achieved using vision (interpersonal), proprioception/efference-copy only (intrapersonal, without vision) or all information sources (intrapersonal, with vision), respectively. These results suggest that submovement coordination represents a behavioural proxy for the adaptive weighting of different sources of information within action-perception loops. In sum, the microstructure of movement reveals common principles governing the dynamics of sensorimotor control to achieve both intra- and interpersonal coordination.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The microstructure of intra- and interpersonal coordination

Nazzaro,

Emanuele,

Laroche

et al. 2023

Proc. R. Soc. B.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Since sensory predictions provide an estimate of where the limb is expected to be at the current time, they can help overcome delays that would otherwise lead to out-of-date position estimates based on sensory feedback alone (Shadmehr et al, 2010). A previous study offered a more complex dynamic Bayesian model with Kalman filtering that attempted to account for sensory delays in an active arm movement task (Crevecoeur et al, 2016; Kasuga et al, 2022). Notably, these authors also concluded that individuals are likely to base state estimates on unimodal (in their case, reliant on proprioceptive feedback) in the face of sensory delays.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Either way, a feedback-based estimate of the moving limb that relies on multisensory integration is likely to be unreliable relative to an estimate made with the same sensory input when the limb is stationary. During active limb movements, this problem may be partially resolved by the availability of sensory prediction signals, which provide a real-time prediction of the current limb position and thus can be used to resolve erroneous motor commands (Crevecoeur et al, 2016; Kasuga et al, 2022). However, the availability of sensory prediction signals does not fully resolve the problem because real albeit delayed sensory feedback is still required to respond to unexpected environmental perturbations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Different sensory information is used for state estimation when stationary or moving

Wong,

Eyssalenne,

Carter

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Accurate estimation of limb state is necessary for both movement planning and execution. It requires both feedforward and feedback information. Prior literature has shown that feedback-based estimates of static limb position are improved by integrating visual and proprioceptive information. However, differences in visual and proprioceptive feedback delays suggest that multisensory integration could be disadvantageous when the limb is moving. To investigate multisensory integration in different movement contexts, we compared the degree of interference created by discrepant visual or proprioceptive feedback on limb position estimates in two tasks: a static task in which estimates were made at the end of a passive movement, and a dynamic task in which estimates were made at movement midpoint. Participants were asked to ignore either the visual or proprioceptive information and report only the location or motion cued by the other sensory modality. In the static context, bimodal trials showed a pattern of idiosyncratic interference: only discrepant proprioceptive feedback significantly interfered with reports of the visual target location, leading to a bias of the reported position toward the proprioceptive cue. In the dynamic context, no interference was seen: participants could ignore sensory feedback from one modality and accurately reproduce the motion indicated by the other modality. We modeled feedback-based state estimation by updating the longstanding maximum likelihood estimation model of multisensory integration to account for sensory delays. Consistent with our behavioral results, the model showed that the benefit of multisensory integration is largely lost when the limb is moving. Together, these findings suggest that the sensory feedback used to compute a state estimate differs depending on whether the limb is stationary or moving. While the former may tend toward multimodal integration, the latter is more likely to be based on feedback from a single sensory modality.

show abstract

“…Kasuga et al (2022) suggest a two-stage process for integration of sensory information. In an initial subcortical stage, information from each sensory modality is processed separately, allowing fast error-correction based on only proprioceptive feedback, whereas in the second cortical stage, different sensory modalities are integrated (Kasuga et al, 2022). In the second stage, when information from various modalities is integrated into a unified experience, visual information dominates.…”

Section: Metacognitive Judgmentsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Ability to monitor deviations of own movement without visual feedback

Brandt,

Bjerregaard,

Jensen

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How conscious sensations of movement relates to signals essential for movement control remains under investigation. This question is typically investigated using visuomotor tasks, in which sensation of movement is disturbed by conflicting visual feedback. The present study uses metacognitive judgements to investigate conscious access to movement signals, unchallenged by visual signals, in an index finger force task. We found that some participants can correctly assign metacognitive judgements (MCJs) to their own force, suggesting that participants do indeed have metacognitive access to sensorimotor signals. We found no correlation between metacognitive access to sensorimotor signal and variance in motor performance. Further, we found that in this purely sensorimotor task, internal focus of attention reduces variability in force compared to external focus of attention. Our results indicate that not only is it possible to access sensorimotor information, it is also possible to use focus of attention to reduce variability in force performance.

show abstract

Integration of proprioceptive and visual feedback during online control of reaching

Cited by 27 publications

References 59 publications

The microstructure of intra- and interpersonal coordination

The microstructure of intra- and interpersonal coordination

Different sensory information is used for state estimation when stationary or moving

Ability to monitor deviations of own movement without visual feedback

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About