The cerebellum is not necessary for visually driven recalibration of hand proprioception

Henriques, Denise Y. P.; Filippopulos, Filipp; Straube, Andreas; Eggert, Thomas

doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.09.029

Cited by 36 publications

(55 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is consistent with the additional results of Synofzik et al (2008) and Izawa et al (2012), where they found that the learninginduced shifts in active hand localization was reduced (although still significant) in patients with cerebellar damages, and our own results that show cerebellar patients do show proprioceptive recalibration (Henriques, Filippopulos, Straube, & Eggert, 2014). This suggest that indeed the cerebellum may be contributing to predicting the sensory consequences of movements but not proprioceptive estimates of hand position (Block & Bastian, 2012;Henriques et al, 2014). We also isolated these components and observed how they interact with awareness, and indirectly source attribution of errors, during adaptation.…”

Section: Hand Localizationsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…As replicated in our study, when a passive version of the localization task was used to isolate afferent-based changes and efferent-based changes in hand localization, around 80% of a 10° shift in hand localization could be attributed to changes in afferent-based localization, with only 20% that can be attributed to efferent based signals ('t . This is consistent with the additional results of Synofzik et al (2008) and Izawa et al (2012), where they found that the learninginduced shifts in active hand localization was reduced (although still significant) in patients with cerebellar damages, and our own results that show cerebellar patients do show proprioceptive recalibration (Henriques, Filippopulos, Straube, & Eggert, 2014). This suggest that indeed the cerebellum may be contributing to predicting the sensory consequences of movements but not proprioceptive estimates of hand position (Block & Bastian, 2012;Henriques et al, 2014).…”

Section: Hand Localizationsupporting

confidence: 92%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The effects of awareness of the perturbation during motor adaptation on hand localization

Modchalingam

Vachon

Hart

et al. 2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Explicit awareness of a task is often evoked during rehabilitation and sports training with the intention of accelerating learning and improving performance. However, the effects of awareness of perturbations on the resulting sensory and motor changes produced during motor learning are not well understood. Here, we use explicit instructions as well as large rotation sizes to generate awareness of the perturbation during a visuomotor rotation task and test the resulting changes in both perceived and predicted sensory consequences as well as implicit motor changes.We split participants into 4 groups which differ in both magnitude of the rotation (either 30° or 60°) during adaptation, and whether they receive a strategy to counter the rotation or not prior to adaptation. Performance benefits of explicit instruction are largest during early adaptation but continued to lead to improved performance through 90 trials of training. We show that with either instruction, or with large perturbations, participants become aware of countering the rotation.However, we find a base amount of implicit learning, with equal magnitudes, across all groups, even when asked to exclude any strategies while reaching with no visual feedback of the hand.Participants also estimate the location of the unseen hand when it is moved by the robot (passive localization) and when they generate their own movement (active localization) following adaptation. These learning-induced shifts in estimates of hand position reflect both proprioceptive recalibration and updates in the predicted consequences of movements. We find that these estimates of felt hand position, which reflect updates in both proprioception and efference based estimates of hand position, shift significantly for all groups and were not modulated by either instruction or perturbation size. 2Our results indicate that not all processes of motor learning benefit from an explicit awareness of the task. Particularly, proprioceptive recalibration and the updating of predicted sensory consequences are largely implicit processes.

show abstract

Section: Hand Localizationsupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Hand Localizationsupporting

confidence: 92%

The effects of awareness of the perturbation during motor adaptation on hand localization

Modchalingam

Vachon

Hart

et al. 2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…That is, people learn to use a different movement to achieve the same desired outcome. Recalibrated proprioception also informs movements, as we and others have shown that paradigms preventing updates of internal models, while allowing for proprioceptive recalibration, do lead to reach aftereffects that mimic this proprioceptive shift Cameron et al, 2012;Salomonczyk et al, 2013;Henriques et al, 2014;Mostafa et al, 2019). Moreover, the Non-instructed group's different localization shifts for active and passive localization show both afferent and efferent-based contributions to behavior.…”

Section: Afferent and Efferent-based Hand Location Estimates Contribumentioning

confidence: 75%

“…Changes in afferent-based estimates of hand location seem to be a robust form of sensory plasticity, as evidenced by its relatively quick emergence (Ruttle et al, 2016), its persistence despite explicit adaptation (Modchalingam et al, 2019), and its preservation despite aging Vachon et al, 2019) and within other forms of perturbations (Cressman and Henriques, 2009;Ostry et al, 2010;Cameron et al, 2012;Leech et al, 2018;Sombric et al, 2019). Furthermore, the recalibration of proprioception is intact in people with mild cerebellar ataxia (Henriques et al, 2014), despite the cerebellum playing a crucial role in adaptation (Martin et al, 1996;Bastian, 2006;2008;Tseng et al, 2007;Synofzik et al, 2008;Taylor et al, 2010;Izawa et al, 2012;Wong et al, 2019). This implies that proprioceptive recalibration relies on a signal different from efferent-based contributions to hand localization, such as a visuoproprioceptive discrepancy ('t Hart and Henriques, 2016;Ruttle et al, 2018;Mostafa et al, 2019).…”

Section: Persistent Shifts In Hand Localizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

External error attribution dampens efferent-based predictions but not proprioceptive changes in hand localization

Gastrock

Modchalingam

Hart

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Motor learning and adaptation are guided by the attribution of errors to internal or external sources. When errors are clearly external, we should not update our internal models for movement or state estimation, i.e. there should be no implicit learning. However, measures of implicit learning are the same whether or not we induce explicit adaptation with instructions about the nature of the perturbation. Here we make errors even more clearly external by either demonstrating the rotation on every trial, or showing the hand itself throughout training. Implicit reach aftereffects persist, but are reduced in both groups. Only for the group viewing the hand, state estimates suggest that predicted sensory consequences are not updated, but only rely on recalibrated proprioception. Our results show that state estimation of the hand incorporates source attribution during motor learning, but recalibrated proprioception is an implicit process unaffected by external error attribution.

show abstract

“…This dissociation is important because it demonstrates the specificity of the deficits—patients clearly have a cerebellar deficit on the visuomotor task but not the visual-proprioceptive recalibration. Henriques, Filippopulous, Straube and Eggert (2014) compared proprioceptive realignment following a reaching task where a cursor was gradually rotated relative to the unseen hand [10]. They studied visuomotor adaptation with unconstrained reaches and a visual-proprioceptive discrepancy task where the movement was externally constrained.…”

Section: The Cerebellum and Sensory Perceptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cerebellar damage impairs internal predictions for sensory and motor function

Therrien

Bastian

2015

Current Opinion in Neurobiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The cerebellum is connected to cerebral areas that subserve a range of sensory and motor functions. In this review, we summarize new literature demonstrating deficits in visual perception, proprioception, motor control, and motor learning performance following cerebellar damage. In particular, we highlight novel results that together suggest a general role of the cerebellum in estimating and predicting movement dynamics of the body and environmental stimuli. These findings agree with the hypothesized role of the cerebellum in the generation and calibration of predictive models for a variety of functions.

show abstract

The cerebellum is not necessary for visually driven recalibration of hand proprioception

Cited by 36 publications

References 36 publications

The effects of awareness of the perturbation during motor adaptation on hand localization

The effects of awareness of the perturbation during motor adaptation on hand localization

External error attribution dampens efferent-based predictions but not proprioceptive changes in hand localization

Cerebellar damage impairs internal predictions for sensory and motor function

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About