Physical delay but not subjective delay determines learning rate in prism adaptation

Tanaka, Hirokazu; Homma, Kazuhiro; Imamizu, Hiroshi

doi:10.1007/s00221-010-2476-z

Cited by 31 publications

(67 citation statements)

References 66 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The high velocities and short durations of articulatory speech movements, together with the fact that even the production of a simple CVC word requires sequential actions within and across articulators, may be the critical reason why even short delays in auditory feedback have such a detrimental effect on speech auditory-motor learning whereas comparable visual feedback delays have limited effects on visuo-motor learning in the case of slower and discrete reaching movements [14,15,16]. In our experimental task, vowel durations across all conditions were on average only ~185 ms in duration (and note that this acoustic vowel duration spans across both the oral opening and closing movements, with kinematic measures of each component separately often indicating durations as short as ~75–180 ms [21]).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Interestingly, motor learning for the upper limb seems rather robust to such feedback delays. Although the initial rate of adaptation (and thus the coefficients of a learning function) may be affected more substantially, the extent of visuo-motor adaptation and initial after-effect (relative to a control condition with no additional delay beyond that inherently present in the feedback display system, which by itself can be as large as 60 ms [14]) may be either essentially unchanged [15] or reduced by ~35% [16] with a feedback delay of 100 ms, reduced by ~20% with a delay of 200 ms [14,16], and reduced by ~60%- with a delay of 5000 ms [16] (note that in all these studies visual feedback was blocked during the movement, with only feedback about final hand position provided with or without delay after completion of the movement; thus the true delays relative to movement execution were even larger than reported).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Feedback delays eliminate auditory-motor learning in speech production

Max

Maffett

2015

Neuroscience Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Neurologically healthy individuals use sensory feedback to alter future movements by updating internal models of the effector system and environment. For example, when visual feedback about limb movements or auditory feedback about speech movements is experimentally perturbed, the planning of subsequent movements is adjusted – i.e., sensorimotor adaptation occurs. A separate line of studies has demonstrated that experimentally delaying the sensory consequences of limb movements causes the sensory input to be attributed to external sources rather than to one’s own actions. Yet, similar feedback delays have remarkably little effect on visuo-motor adaptation (although the rate of learning varies, the amount of adaptation is only moderately affected with delays of 100-200 ms, and adaptation still occurs even with a delay as long as 5000 ms). Thus, limb motor learning remains largely intact even in conditions where error assignment favors external factors. Here, we show a fundamentally different result for sensorimotor control of speech articulation: auditory-motor adaptation to formant-shifted feedback is completely eliminated with delays of 100 ms or more. Thus, for speech motor learning, real-time auditory feedback is critical. This novel finding informs theoretical models of human motor control in general and speech motor control in particular, and it has direct implications for the application of motor learning principles in the habilitation and rehabilitation of individuals with various sensorimotor speech disorders.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Feedback delays eliminate auditory-motor learning in speech production

Max

Maffett

2015

Neuroscience Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Smith et al (1960) investigated the effects of delayed visual feedback on a number of simple visual–motor tasks such as writing, drawing, and star- or maze-tracing tasks, and reported that performance, especially that for non-writing tasks, was greatly impaired under delayed visual feedback. Other studies also found that delayed visual feedback impairs other tasks such as steering (e.g., Smith and Sussman, 1970) and manual tracking (e.g., Miall et al, 1985), and reduces the rate and amount of prism adaptation (Kitazawa et al, 1995; Tanaka et al, 2011). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Effects of Delayed Visual Feedback on Grooved Pegboard Test Performance

Fujisaki

2012

Front. Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using four experiments, this study investigates what amount of delay brings about maximal impairment under delayed visual feedback and whether a critical interval, such as that in audition, also exists in vision. The first experiment measured the Grooved Pegboard test performance as a function of visual feedback delays from 120 to 2120 ms in 16 steps. Performance sharply decreased until about 490 ms, then more gradually until 2120 ms, suggesting that two mechanisms were operating under delayed visual feedback. Since delayed visual feedback differs from delayed auditory feedback in that the former induces not only temporal but also spatial displacements between motor and sensory feedback, this difference could also exist in the mechanism responsible for spatial displacement. The second experiment was hence conducted to provide simultaneous haptic feedback together with delayed visual feedback to inform correct spatial position. The disruption was significantly ameliorated when information about spatial position was provided from a haptic source. The sharp decrease in performance of up to approximately 300 ms was followed by an almost flat performance. This is similar to the critical interval found in audition. Accordingly, the mechanism that caused the sharp decrease in performance in experiments 1 and 2 was probably mainly responsible for temporal disparity and is common across different modality–motor combinations, while the other mechanism that caused a rather gradual decrease in performance in experiment 1 was mainly responsible for spatial displacement. In experiments 3 and 4, the reliability of spatial information from the haptic source was reduced by wearing a glove or using a tool. When the reliability of spatial information was reduced, the data lay between those of experiments 1 and 2, and that a gradual decrease in performance partially reappeared. These results further support the notion that two mechanisms operate under delayed visual feedback.

show abstract

“…While performing an action, information on the timing of the sensory feedback has a crucial role in detecting the causal link between the action and its consequence (Kitazawa et al, 1995; Blakemore et al, 1999; Farrer et al, 2008; Tanaka et al, 2011; Honda et al, 2012a,b). For example, when the visual feedback is delayed, a self-generated visual motion is perceived as generated by someone else (Blakemore et al, 1999; Farrer et al, 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Imposed visual feedback delay of an action changes mass perception based on the sensory prediction error

Honda¹,

Hagura²,

Yoshioka³

et al. 2013

Front. Psychol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While performing an action, the timing of when the sensory feedback is given can be used to establish the causal link between the action and its consequence. It has been shown that delaying the visual feedback while carrying an object makes people feel the mass of the object to be greater, suggesting that the feedback timing can also impact the perceived quality of an external object. In this study, we investigated the origin of the feedback timing information that influences the mass perception of the external object. Participants made a straight reaching movement while holding a manipulandum. The movement of the manipulandum was presented as a cursor movement on a monitor. In Experiment 1, various delays were imposed between the actual trajectory and the cursor movement. The participants' perceived mass of the manipulandum significantly increased as the delay increased to 400 ms, but this gain did not reach significance when the delay was 800 ms. This suggests the existence of a temporal tuning mechanism for incorporating the visual feedback into the perception of mass. In Experiment 2, we examined whether the increased mass perception during the visual delay was due to the prediction error of the visual consequence of an action or to the actual delay of the feedback itself. After the participants adapted to the feedback delay, the perceived mass of the object became lighter than before, indicating that updating the temporal prediction model for the visual consequence diminishes the overestimation of the object's mass. We propose that the misattribution of the visual delay into mass perception is induced by the sensorimotor prediction error, possibly when the amount of delay (error) is within the range that can reasonably include the consequence of an action.

show abstract

Physical delay but not subjective delay determines learning rate in prism adaptation

Cited by 31 publications

References 66 publications

Feedback delays eliminate auditory-motor learning in speech production

Feedback delays eliminate auditory-motor learning in speech production

Effects of Delayed Visual Feedback on Grooved Pegboard Test Performance

Imposed visual feedback delay of an action changes mass perception based on the sensory prediction error

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About