Temporal constraints in the use of auditory action effects for motor optimization.

Abstract

For quick ballistic movements the possibility of making online adjustments is limited. However, when the same action (e.g., pressing a button) is repeated multiple times, trial-by-trial adjustments are possible: Previous studies found that participants utilized auditory effects as feedback to optimize the applied force for such tone eliciting actions. In the current study, it was examined whether this also occurred if a delay was inserted between the action and its auditory effect. In 2 experiments, participants applied force impulses to a force-sensitive resistor in a self-paced schedule. Action-effect delay was manipulated between experimental blocks in the 0- to 1,600-ms range. The level of motor adaptation diminished as a function of action-effect delay, with no adaptation observable for delays longer than 200 ms, which indicates that action-effect contingency in itself is not sufficient to warrant that sensory effects will be useful for action control. A third experiment also showed that the observed temporal constraint was not absolute: Adaptation at 200-ms delay was stronger in a group of participants who were exposed to 400-ms action-tone delays before testing, than in a group exposed to a 0-ms action-tone delay, suggesting that action-effect-related motor adaptation is influenced by prior experience. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).

The emergence of action-effect-related motor adaptation amidst outcome unpredictability.

“…In both experiments, actions following tone-eliciting actions were softer than those following silent actions. Because the arrival of the tone effect was unpredictable, the results presented here—along with previous results (Neszmélyi & Horváth, 2018, 2019)—support the notion that action-effect–related motor adaptation is—at least in part—based on automatic action-effect integration that does not take the wider context of the actions into consideration. That is, tones are used to optimize the force of the actions, even if this strategy could be associated with additional switching costs and the unpredictability of the auditory effect for subsequent movements could limit anticipation-based processes.…”

“…Second, when tone-eliciting and silent actions are intermixed, utilization of tones for finding the optimal force might require switching between different control strategies. As indicated by previous studies (Horváth et al, 2018; Neszmélyi & Horváth, 2018, 2019), the balance between the goal to apply the least amount of force and the goal to perform the action successfully is at different force levels for tone-eliciting and silent actions. For tone-eliciting actions, tones provide reliable feedback about successful action execution, whereas for silent actions, uncertainty about action success could result in increased force application.…”

“…However, in contrast to such studies that investigate complex movements involved, for example in swimming or rowing a boat, the action-effect–related motor adaptation paradigm uses simple ballistic actions, where motor optimization is not an explicitly stated goal. Furthermore, whereas augmented feedback studies usually focus on the long-term effects of using inconsistent sensory feedback (i.e., how well motor learning is preserved after additional feedback is removed), we were interested in the influence of unpredictable stimuli when they are presented: If the influence of auditory effects on force application can be observed despite the inconsistent action–effect relationship, this would support the idea about an automatic integration of motor and sensory information (Neszmélyi & Horváth, 2018) that is not determined by knowledge about the wider context and by expectations based on this knowledge. Thus, we administered a modified version of the previously used paradigm (Horváth et al, 2018; Neszmélyi & Horváth, 2017, 2018, 2019).…”

“…Furthermore, whereas augmented feedback studies usually focus on the long-term effects of using inconsistent sensory feedback (i.e., how well motor learning is preserved after additional feedback is removed), we were interested in the influence of unpredictable stimuli when they are presented: If the influence of auditory effects on force application can be observed despite the inconsistent action–effect relationship, this would support the idea about an automatic integration of motor and sensory information (Neszmélyi & Horváth, 2018) that is not determined by knowledge about the wider context and by expectations based on this knowledge. Thus, we administered a modified version of the previously used paradigm (Horváth et al, 2018; Neszmélyi & Horváth, 2017, 2018, 2019). Participants pinched (Experiment 1) or tapped on (Experiment 2) a force sensitive resistor (FSR), but instead of manipulating action-related tone-elicitation between blocks of conditions, the elicitation of the sound effect was randomly determined from action-to-action.…”

Action force modulates action binding: evidence for a multisensory information integration explanation

“…The first possibility may find support from the observation that distal sensory feedback (e.g., a sound) can reduce keypress intensity (Chase et al 1961 ; Neszmelyi and Horvath 2018 ). Also in study 1 (no keypress force manipulation), keypresses in the AS condition (mean = 1.44 Newton; SD = 0.55) had lighter peak force than in the AO condition [mean = 1.72 Newton; SD = 0.94; t (41) = − 3.32, p = 9.38e−4, one-tailed, d z = − 0.51].…”