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

Abstract

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.

Movement Sonification in Stroke Rehabilitation

“…However, Bastian points out that efficacy of stroke rehabilitation might be improved by methods that combine perceptual- and motor oriented approaches ( 6 ). A recent study with healthy participants showed a higher efficacy of a sensorimotor compared to a purely motor orientated approach, accordingly, although both approaches address the same adaptation mechanisms ( 7 ). An example for a perception-oriented approach for stroke rehabilitation is Ramachandran's mirror visual feedback method.…”

Auditory Modulation of Multisensory Representations

“…Partial inhibition seems to be possible on the basis of cognitive executive inhibition. This is indicated by reports on facilitation of adaptation to two opposite directed sensorimotor discordances through explicit knowledge about these discordances (Imamizu, Sugimoto, Osu, Tsutsui, Sugiyama, Wada, et al, 2000) as well as by significant correlations between the amount of interference and participants' mental flexibility and cognitive inhibition abilities (Schmitz, 2016). Whereas these effects occur fast and are short-term, complete inhibition seldom occurs spontaneously.…”

Enhanced cognitive performance after multiple adaptations to visuomotor transformations

“…Both parameters are significant covariates for the adaptation to increasing sensorimotor discordances [ 8 ]. Perseveration is also a predictor of the generalization of adaptation and the interference between consecutive adaptations [ 15 ]. Moreover, divergent thinking abilities predict how fast participants adapt [ 12 ].…”

“…Factor analyses indicate that the test performance primarily depends on action initiation (tasks 1 to 3), reading speed (task 1), nomination speed (task 2) and cognitive control of attention during interference (task 3) [ 33 , 34 ]. The performance in this test is a significant predictor of the interference between consecutive adaptations [ 15 ].…”

“…The study design considers adaptation factors that have been associated with different cognitive abilities in cross-sectional studies: Adaptation at different time scales [ 14 ], adaptation to increasing angular transformations [ 8 ], and interference between successive adaptation tasks [ 15 ]. At the same time, a multifactorial design was expected to promote compliance to participate in the longitudinal experiment because it creates a relatively high degree of variety concerning the execution of the tasks.…”