Prism adaptation power on spatial cognition: Adaptation to different optical deviations in healthy individuals

Meta-analysis of the visuospatial aftereffects of prism adaptation, with two novel experiments

“…Sample sizes in this literature have been small-tomodest (n = 7-40), so we should expect patterns of significance to vary. For instance, in contrast to Michel & Cruz (2015), Striemer and colleagues (2016) found that adaptation to 8.5° prisms induced a significant shift in landmark judgements but not line bisection, whereas Striemer & Danckert (2010) found significant aftereffects of 10° prisms on both tasks, and we found null effects of 10° prisms on landmark judgements and of 12° prisms on line bisection. Similarly, Schintu et al (2014) reported that the perceptual aftereffects of prism adaptation were significant in some post-prism blocks, but not in others.…”

“…The major procedural factor influencing the detectability of visuospatial aftereffects is the strength of the prisms to which participants are adapted. This may seem obvious, but only recently has there been any attempt to study the effect of prism power experimentally (Michel & Cruz, 2015;Striemer et al, 2016). Michel & Cruz (2015) adapted three groups of eight participants to different shifts (8°, 10°, 15°), using a 20 minute exposure, and measured the effects on line bisection and landmark tasks (see Table 1).…”

“…This may seem obvious, but only recently has there been any attempt to study the effect of prism power experimentally (Michel & Cruz, 2015;Striemer et al, 2016). Michel & Cruz (2015) adapted three groups of eight participants to different shifts (8°, 10°, 15°), using a 20 minute exposure, and measured the effects on line bisection and landmark tasks (see Table 1). They concluded that 8° prisms are insufficient to induce visuospatial aftereffects, that 10° prisms can cause a shift in manual bisection but not the landmark task, and that 15° prisms can cause a shift in either task.…”

“…At least eleven published studies, often with more than one experiment, have now followed the same general template (Berberovic & Mattingley, 2003;Colent et al, 2000;Guinet & Michel, 2013;Herlihey, Black, & Ferber, 2012;Michel, Pisella, et al, 2003;Michel & Cruz, 2015;Nijboer, Vree, Dijkerman, & Van Der Stigchel, 2010;Schintu et al, 2014Schintu et al, , 2017Striemer & Danckert, 2010;Striemer, Russell, & Nath, 2016). Prism adaptation is induced by repetitive pointing to dots, with visual feedback of the hand during the second half of the reach (so-called 'concurrent' exposure; Redding, Rossetti, & Wallace, 2005 Effective adaptation is confirmed by checking for the expected sensorimotor aftereffect, through pointing responses made without visual feedback, or visual or proprioceptive straight-ahead judgements.…”

Beyond the Sensorimotor Plasticity: Cognitive Expansion of Prism Adaptation in Healthy Individuals

“…They appeared to be a faithful qualitative simulation of neglect, i.e., a rightward bias in perceptual line bisection ( Colent et al, 2000 ). Complementary studies confirmed the effects of adaptation on both manual and perceptual bisection tasks ( Michel et al, 2003a ; Nijboer et al, 2010 ; Striemer and Danckert, 2010 ; Fortis et al, 2011 ; Michel and Cruz, 2015 ) and showed that they lasted for at least half an hour ( Schintu et al, 2014 ). The occurrence of cognitive after-effects in healthy individuals seems to depend on the baseline expression of pseudoneglect.…”