2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.isci.2022.104077
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Predictive attenuation of touch and tactile gating are distinct perceptual phenomena

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

10
55
1

Year Published

2022
2022
2025
2025

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 39 publications
(66 citation statements)
references
References 125 publications
(317 reference statements)
10
55
1
Order By: Relevance
“…1c, d ). This indicates that self-generated tactile stimuli felt weaker than externally generated stimuli of identical intensity, replicating previous findings 15 , 18 , 24 , 25 , 70 , 71 . When removing the extreme PSE value of one participant (Fig.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 90%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…1c, d ). This indicates that self-generated tactile stimuli felt weaker than externally generated stimuli of identical intensity, replicating previous findings 15 , 18 , 24 , 25 , 70 , 71 . When removing the extreme PSE value of one participant (Fig.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 90%
“…The psychophysical paradigm was a two-alternative forced-choice force-discrimination task that has been extensively used to assess somatosensory attenuation 15 , 18 , 24 , 25 , 70 , 71 . On each trial, the participants received two taps ( test and comparison taps) on the pulp of their left index fingers, and they had to verbally indicate which felt stronger: the first or the second tap.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Considering this, the functional mechanisms governing sensory suppression of external stimulations are still a matter of debate. Although this phenomenon has been attributed to predictive mechanisms, such as internal forward models ( 31 ), other accounts claim that it stems from an unspecific mechanism, because the probe stimuli used to measure suppression cannot be predicted by an efference copy of the motor command itself ( 22 , 23 ), or because backward masking may generally obscure any sensations on the moving limb ( 1 ). Here, we set out to address the debate on the origin of tactile suppression and show that tactile suppression of externally generated sensations originates from specific sensorimotor predictions.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Yet, reports of tactile suppression shortly before and during passive movements indicate that peripheral, reafferent signals may also mask the detection of tactile probes ( 20 ), although suppression before active movements may precede the effects observed in passive movements ( 4 , 21 ). The possibility of backward masking mechanisms as well as the fact that the external tactile probes cannot be predicted by an efference copy of the motor command have led to recent claims that the reduced sensitivity on a moving limb is rather caused by general cancellation policies, and tactile suppression of externally generated stimuli is independent of sensorimotor predictions ( 22 , 23 ). Here, we aim to resolve this debate by investigating whether tactile suppression stems from such precise sensorimotor predictions or whether it originates from an unspecific mechanism that leads to a blanket reduction in tactile sensitivity and thus does not distinguish between predicted and unpredicted sensory feedback.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%