Sensory perception during movement in man

Chapman, C. Elaine; Bushnell, M. Catherine; Miron, Denis; Duncan, Gary E.; Lund, James P.

doi:10.1007/bf00249795

Cited by 212 publications

(184 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

165

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This was an important consideration because there is evidence that SI responsiveness is modulated by motor intention (e.g., Nelson 1988) and that cells in both SI and SII can show profoundly altered responses to tactile stimuli after the discrimination (motor) response in attention paradigms (Burton and Sinclair 2000;Burton et al 1997;Hsiao et al 1993). The general absence of any effect attributable to movement on the ipsilateral side is consistent with the results of previous psychophysical experiments showing that contralateral hand and arm movements have no effect on the detection of tactile stimuli applied to the opposite arm (Chapman 1994;Chapman et al 1987;Williams et al1998). This suggestion is likewise supported by our observation of similar results when the analysis of the texture-change period was extended to all trials (SI, 17 vs. 16% attention-sensitive; SII, 58 vs. 51%) (Meftah and Chapman, unpublished observations), including data from trials in which the texture-change interval followed as well as preceded the motor response.…”

Section: Methodological Considerationssupporting

confidence: 85%

Effects of a Cross-Modal Manipulation of Attention on Somatosensory Cortical Neuronal Responses to Tactile Stimuli in the Monkey

Meftah¹,

Shenasa

Chapman

2002

Journal of Neurophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Meftah, El-Mehdi, Jafar Shenasa, and C. Elaine Chapman. Effects of a cross-modal manipulation of attention on somatosensory cortical neuronal responses to tactile stimuli in the monkey. J Neurophysiol 88: 3133-3149, 2002; 10.1152/jn.00121.2002. The role of attention in modulating tactile sensitivity in primary (SI) and secondary somatosensory cortex (SII) was addressed using a cross-modal manipulation of attention, somatosensory versus visual. Two adult monkeys (Macaca mulatta) were trained to perform two tasks: tactile discrimination of a change in the texture of a surface presented to digits 3 and 4 and visual discrimination of a change in the intensity of a light. In each trial, standard texture (2 mm spatial period, SP) and visual stimuli were presented. These were followed by an increase in SP and/or luminance. Each trial was preceded by an instruction cue (colored light) that directed the animal to attend and respond to the change in one modality while ignoring any change in the other modality. The two tasks were interleaved during the recording, on a trial-by-trial basis. Extracellular recordings were made from 178 neurons (SI, 102; SII, 76), all with a cutaneous receptive field on the stimulated digit tips. Discharge was quantified in both tasks during the instruction, the standard-stimuli, and the texturechange periods. The results showed that selective attention to tactile stimuli had qualitatively and quantitatively greater and earlier effects in SII than SI. Twenty-four of 102 SI cells showed a significant change in discharge with the direction of attention. For almost all cells (20/24), discharge was enhanced when attention was directed toward the tactile stimuli; the effects were most frequent in the analysis interval that encompassed the change in SP (16/24). A significantly higher proportion of SII cells were attention-sensitive (47/76). The effects were concentrated in the texture-change period (39/47) but also included earlier periods in the trial (instruction period, n ϭ 15; standard-stimuli period, n ϭ 32). Attention-related modulation that spanned all three intervals (n ϭ 11) likely reflected baseline changes in discharge. For the texturesensitive cells (43 in SI, 37 in SII), the mean change in discharge frequency (post texture change Ϫ pre-texture change) in each task was significantly increased in SII but not SI with selective attention. The results are consistent with a two-stage modulation of parietal cortical discharge, an initial stage (SI) in which there is some enhancement of sensory responses to the salient feature, the texture change, and a second stage (SII) in which baseline changes occur, along with further feature selection. These controls may be independently exerted on SI and SII, or they may reflect top-down controls from SII to SI.

show abstract

Section: Methodological Considerationssupporting

confidence: 85%

Effects of a Cross-Modal Manipulation of Attention on Somatosensory Cortical Neuronal Responses to Tactile Stimuli in the Monkey

Meftah¹,

Shenasa

Chapman

2002

Journal of Neurophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The attenuation of the perception of self-produced stimuli is well documented in humans (Angel & Malenka, 1982;Chapman, Bushnell, Miron, Duncan, & Lund, 1987;Collins, Cameron, Gillard, & Prochazka, 1998;Milne, Aniss, Kay, & Gandevia, 1988). Possible physiological mechanisms by which this attenuation of self-produced tactile stimuli is mediated have been postulated on the basis of research on animals.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatio-Temporal Prediction Modulates the Perception of Self-Produced Stimuli

Blakemore

Frith

Wolpert

1999

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

742

570

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I We investigated why self-produced tactile stimulation is perceived as less intense than the same stimulus produced externally. A tactile stimulus on the palm of the right hand was either externally produced, by a robot or self-produced by the subject. In the conditions in which the tactile stimulus was self-produced, subjects moved the arm of a robot with their left hand to produce the tactile stimulus on their right hand via a second robot. Subjects were asked to rate intensity of the tactile sensation and consistently rated self-produced tactile stimuli as less tickly, intense, and pleasant than externally produced tactile stimuli. Using this robotic setup we were able to manipulate the correspondence between the action of the subjects' left hand and the tactile stimulus on their right hand. First, we parametrically varied the delay between the movement of the left hand and the resultant movement of the tactile stimulus on the right hand. Second, we implemented varying degrees of trajectory perturbation and varied the direction of the tactile stimulus movement as a function of the direction of left-hand movement. The tickliness rating increased signiªcantly with increasing delay and trajectory perturbation. This suggests that self-produced movements attenuate the resultant tactile sensation and that a necessary requirement of this attenuation is that the tactile stimulus and its causal motor command correspond in time and space. We propose that the extent to which self-produced tactile sensation is attenuated (i.e., its tickliness) is proportional to the error between the sensory feedback predicted by an internal forward model of the motor system and the actual sensory feedback produced by the movement. I

show abstract

“…Sensory forward models, however, may use the very same signal in order to predict the sensory consequences of the motor command, which can then be compared to actual sensory inputs. Suppression of sensory inputs during active movement (Chapman et al, 1987;Voss et al, 2006) could be explained in this way. Moreover, one could also postulate that agency might rather be related to the proper matching of the predictions of sensory forward models and the actual sensory inputs as reflected by a vanishing error signal.…”

Section: Computational Neurosciencementioning

confidence: 97%

“…Additional central errors may arise and have been argued to be of key importance in agency. Afferent visual signals, afferent proprioceptive signals, and efferent motor signals, are also compared with predicted sensory consequences using the efferent motor signals (Chapman, Bushnell, Miron, Duncan, & Lund, 1987;Voss, Ingram, Haggard, & Wolpert, 2006). Until latter errors as well as intersensory and sensori-motor errors are distinguished in greater detail, functional interpretations of behavioral and neuroimaging studies as well as implications for philosophy will remain ambiguous.…”

Section: Towards Neurobiological Definitionsmentioning

confidence: 99%