Illusions of force perception: the role of sensori-motor predictions, visual information, and motor errors.

Internal predictions influence the perception of force. When we support an object with one hand and lift it up with the other, we expect the force to disappear from the first, postural hand. In a virtual reality system, we violated this prediction by maintaining the force on the postural hand, whereas the object was still seen and felt to be lifted by the lifting hand. In this situation, participants perceived an illusionary increase in force on the postural hand, which was, in reality, constant. We test three possible mechanisms of how force perception may be influenced in this context. First, we showed that part of the illusion can be linked to a sensorimotor prediction--the predicted sensory consequences based on an efference copy of the lifting action. The illusion is reduced when the object is lifted by an external force. We also showed that the illusion changes on a trial-by-trial basis, paralleling the fast adaptation of the postural response. Second, motor errors that arise from a miscalibrated forward model do not contribute to the illusion; the illusion was unchanged even when we prevented motor errors by supporting the postural hand. Finally, visual information signaling the removal of the object is sufficient to elicit part of the illusion. These results argue that both sensorimotor predictions and visual object information, but not motor errors, influence force perception.

[1]  Reza Shadmehr,et al.  Quantifying Generalization from Trial-by-Trial Behavior of Adaptive Systems that Learn with Basis Functions: Theory and Experiments in Human Motor Control , 2003, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[2]  D. Wolpert,et al.  Spatio-Temporal Prediction Modulates the Perception of Self-Produced Stimuli , 1999, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[3]  R. Ivry,et al.  Anticipatory adjustments in the unloading task: Is an efference copy necessary for learning? , 2002, Experimental Brain Research.

[4]  H. Ross When is a Weight not Illusory? , 1969, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[5]  Daniel M. Wolpert,et al.  Forward Models for Physiological Motor Control , 1996, Neural Networks.

[6]  J. Flanagan,et al.  Independence of perceptual and sensorimotor predictions in the size–weight illusion , 2000, Nature Neuroscience.

[7]  D. Wolpert,et al.  Perception of the Consequences of Self-Action Is Temporally Tuned and Event Driven , 2005, Current Biology.

[8]  E. Holst Relations between the central Nervous System and the peripheral organs , 1954 .

[9]  L. Weiskrantz,et al.  Preliminary Observations on Tickling Oneself , 1971, Nature.

[10]  R. Ivry,et al.  Cerebellar involvement in anticipating the consequences of self-produced actions during bimanual movements. , 2005, Journal of neurophysiology.

[11]  J. Massion,et al.  Anticipatory postural changes induced by active unloading and comparison with passive unloading in man , 1982, Pflügers Archiv.

[12]  Michael I. Jordan,et al.  An internal model for sensorimotor integration. , 1995, Science.

[13]  D M Wolpert,et al.  Predicting the Consequences of Our Own Actions: The Role of Sensorimotor Context Estimation , 1998, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[14]  Uwe Mattler,et al.  Delayed flanker effects on lateralized readiness potentials , 2003, Experimental Brain Research.

[15]  Michael I. Jordan,et al.  Forward Models: Supervised Learning with a Distal Teacher , 1992, Cogn. Sci..

[16]  P. Haggard,et al.  Voluntary action and conscious awareness , 2002, Nature Neuroscience.

[17]  Yasmin L. Hashambhoy,et al.  Neural Correlates of Reach Errors , 2005, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[18]  D. Wolpert,et al.  Attenuation of Self-Generated Tactile Sensations Is Predictive, not Postdictive , 2006, PLoS biology.

[19]  D. Wolpert,et al.  Two Eyes for an Eye: The Neuroscience of Force Escalation , 2003, Science.

[20]  S. Lederman,et al.  The Golf-Ball Illusion: Evidence for Top-down Processing in Weight Perception , 1998, Perception.