The absence or temporal offset of visual feedback does not influence adaptation to novel movement dynamics

Abstract

Delays in transmitting and processing sensory information require correctly associating delayed feedback to issued motor commands for accurate error compensation. The flexibility of this alignment between motor signals and feedback has been demonstrated for movement recalibration to visual manipulations, but the alignment dependence for adapting movement dynamics is largely unknown. Here we examined the effect of visual feedback manipulations on force-field adaptation. Three subject groups used a manipulandum while experiencing a lag in the corresponding cursor motion (0, 75, or 150 ms). When the offset was applied at the start of the session (continuous condition), adaptation was not significantly different between groups. However, these similarities may be due to acclimation to the offset before motor adaptation. We tested additional subjects who experienced the same delays concurrent with the introduction of the perturbation (abrupt condition). In this case adaptation was statistically indistinguishable from the continuous condition, indicating that acclimation to feedback delay was not a factor. In addition, end-point errors were not significantly different across the delay or onset conditions, but end-point correction (e.g., deceleration duration) was influenced by the temporal offset. As an additional control, we tested a group of subjects who performed without visual feedback and found comparable movement adaptation results. These results suggest that visual feedback manipulation (absence or temporal misalignment) does not affect adaptation to novel dynamics, independent of both acclimation and perceptual awareness. These findings could have implications for modeling how the motor system adjusts to errors despite concurrent delays in sensory feedback information. A temporal offset between movement and distorted visual feedback (e.g., visuomotor rotation) influences the subsequent motor recalibration, but the effects of this offset for altered movement dynamics are largely unknown. Here we examined the influence of ) delayed and) removed visual feedback on the adaptation to novel movement dynamics. These results contribute to understanding of the control strategies that compensate for movement errors when there is a temporal separation between motion state and sensory information.

Slowing the body slows down time perception

“…Another consideration is that in our experiments, viscosity was fixed throughout each trial; in followup experiments, it would be interesting to calibrate the nature and degree of movement perturbations to observe the resulting effects on timing. For example, experimenters could introduce dynamic perturbations or alter visual feedback much like in motor adaptation experiments ( Shadmehr and Mussa-Ivaldi, 1994 ; Krakauer et al, 2000 ; Alhussein et al, 2019 ; McKenna et al, 2017 ; Zhou et al, 2017 ).…”

The 24-h savings of adaptation to novel movement dynamics initially reflects the recall of previous performance

“…Each individual trial was then centered, based on the peak velocity, with a temporal window of 1,200 ms (Ϯ600 ms); this window ensured the complete movement was captured. The linear regression coefficient of the force applied laterally by subjects to the ideal force was determined to quantify an adaptation coefficient value on any given trial (Hosseini et al 2017;Joiner and Smith 2008;Joiner et al 2011Joiner et al , 2013Joiner et al , 2017McKenna et al 2017;Sing et al 2009;Wagner and Smith 2008). To counter any initial biases (measured from preadaptation ECs placed throughout baseline blocks), mean baseline force profiles were subtracted from subsequent force profiles recorded on an individual basis (Gonzalez Castro et al 2014;Hosseini et al 2017;Joiner and Smith 2008;Joiner et al 2011Joiner et al , 2013Joiner et al , 2017McKenna et al 2017;Sing et al 2009).…”

Exposure to Auditory Feedback Delay while Speaking Induces Perceptual Habituation but does not Mitigate the Disruptive Effect of Delay on Speech Auditory-motor Learning

“…In other words, can experience-based plasticity in the temporal aspect of sensory predictions negate the otherwise detrimental effects of feedback delays when learning to adapt to a different sensorimotor perturbation? Initially, this appeared to be not the case as Tanaka et al (2011) found no improvement in prism glass 1 It has been shown that visual feedback delays of 75 or 150 ms during reaching movements had no statistically significant effect on adaptation to a force field (i.e., a somatosensory perturbation), but in that case even the complete absence of visual feedback did not significantly disrupt learning (McKenna et al, 2017). adaptation with 136 ms visual feedback delay (100 ms added delay, 36 ms equipment delay) if subjects had also experienced the same delay before vision was shifted.…”