Predicted reach consequences drive time course of tactile suppression

HIGHLIGHTSTactile suppression (TS) is the reduction in sensitivity to touch during movement.We tested whether TS is modulated by changes in speed due to speed‐accuracy tradeoff.TS increased late in reach in all conditions despite varied deceleration.TS shows a temporally specific increase when a tactile consequence is predicted.These predicted consequences influence the relationship of movement speed and TS. ABSTRACT Sensitivity to touch is reduced during movement; this tactile suppression is likely the result of a mechanism that suppresses self‐generated movement consequences. We sought to determine whether tactile suppression is modulated by naturally evoked changes in movement speed driven by task precision demands (Exp.1), and by changes in predicted movement consequences (Exp.2). We measured suppression by comparing detection thresholds for a vibration applied to the finger during reach and at rest. In Experiment 1 we varied reach target size to create a speed‐accuracy tradeoff, where participants decelerated more to smaller targets to accurately hit them. We theorized that the reduction in late‐reach speed associated with higher precision demands might lead to a reduction in late‐reach suppression, consistent with the literature showing a positive relationship between speed and suppression. Contrary to our hypothesis, we found suppression increased towards the end of the reach in all conditions, despite a significant decrease in reaching speed. We postulated this might be a de‐emphasizing of the predicted tactile feedback associated with tapping the target. To test this, in Experiment 2 we paired a vibration consequence with a target of a certain colour. We found an increase in late‐reach suppression for this target compared to a target of another colour with no associated consequence. Our results indicate that tactile suppression is temporally sensitive and increases as predicted consequences become more likely. We propose the positive correlation between movement speed and suppression previously reported may be driven by the predicted somatosensory consequences associated with increased movement speed.

[1]  Y. Benjamini,et al.  Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing , 1995 .

[2]  R. C. Oldfield.  The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. , 1971, Neuropsychologia.

[3]  Gordon Binsted,et al.  Availability of vision and tactile gating: vision enhances tactile sensitivity , 2016, Experimental Brain Research.

[4]  Mark J. Edwards,et al.  Motivation and movement: the effect of monetary incentive on performance speed , 2011, Experimental Brain Research.

[5]  H. E. Torebjörk,et al.  Gating of tactile input from the hand , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.

[6]  D. Wolpert,et al.  Sensorimotor attenuation by central motor command signals in the absence of movement , 2006, Nature Neuroscience.

[7]  C. Spence,et al.  Changes in tactile sensitivity over the time-course of a goal-directed movement , 2010, Behavioural Brain Research.

[8]  P. Fitts.  The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. , 1954, Journal of experimental psychology.

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

[10]  Katja Fiehler,et al.  Reach-relevant somatosensory signals modulate tactile suppression. , 2017, Journal of neurophysiology.

[11]  R. Malenka,et al.  Velocity-dependent suppression of cutaneous sensitivity during movement , 1982, Experimental Neurology.

[12]  D. Wolpert,et al.  Mere Expectation to Move Causes Attenuation of Sensory Signals , 2008, PloS one.

[13]  Gavin Buckingham,et al.  Gating of vibrotactile detection during visually guided bimanual reaches , 2010, Experimental Brain Research.

[14]  Francis McGlone,et al.  Context-dependent changes in tactile perception during movement execution , 2013, Front. Psychol..

[15]  E. Schröger,et al.  Sensory suppression effects to self-initiated sounds reflect the attenuation of the unspecific N1 component of the auditory ERP. , 2013, Psychophysiology.

[16]  H. E. Torebjörk,et al.  Gating of tactile input from the hand , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.

[17]  Gavin Buckingham,et al.  Tactile gating in a reaching and grasping task , 2014, Physiological reports.

[18]  L. Cohen,et al.  ‘Gating’ of somatosensory evoked potentials begins before the onset of voluntary movement in man , 1985, Brain Research.

[19]  D. Wolpert,et al.  Central cancellation of self-produced tickle sensation , 1998, Nature Neuroscience.

[20]  M. Weinrich,et al.  Gating of somatosensory perception following movement , 1985, Experimental Neurology.

[21]  El-Mehdi Meftah,et al.  A critical speed for gating of tactile detection during voluntary movement , 2011, Experimental Brain Research.

[22]  Katja Fiehler,et al.  Enhancement and Suppression of Tactile Signals During Reaching , 2017, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[23]  Francisco L Colino,et al.  Time Course of Tactile Gating in a Reach-to-Grasp and Lift Task , 2016, Journal of motor behavior.

[24]  D. Wolpert,et al.  Motor prediction , 2001, Current Biology.

[25]  J. Rothwell,et al.  Gating of somatosensory evoked potentials during different kinds of movement in man. , 1981, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[26]  T. Whitford,et al.  Sensory attenuation of self-initiated sounds maps onto habitual associations between motor action and sound , 2017, Neuropsychologia.

[27]  Andrea Desantis,et al.  Believing and Perceiving: Authorship Belief Modulates Sensory Attenuation , 2012, PloS one.

[28]  C. E. Chapman,et al.  Differential controls over tactile detection in humans by motor commands and peripheral reafference. , 2006, Journal of neurophysiology.

[29]  Gorjan Alagic,et al.  #p , 2019, Quantum information & computation.

[30]  A. Watson,et al.  Quest: A Bayesian adaptive psychometric method , 1983, Perception & psychophysics.

[31]  M. Lappe,et al.  Saccadic suppression during voluntary versus reactive saccades. , 2017, Journal of vision.

[32]  Romeo Chua,et al.  Relevance-dependent modulation of tactile suppression during active, passive and pantomime reach-to-grasp movements , 2018, Behavioural Brain Research.

[33]  C. E. Chapman,et al.  Time course and magnitude of movement-related gating of tactile detection in humans. I. Importance of stimulus location. , 1998, Journal of neurophysiology.

[34]  G. G. Stokes.  "J." , 1890, The New Yale Book of Quotations.

[35]  C. MacKenzie,et al.  Three-Dimensional Movement Trajectories in Fitts' Task: Implications for Control , 1987 .