Reach adaptation to explicit vs. implicit target error

The adaptation of reaching movements has typically been investigated by either distorting visual feedback of the reaching limb or by distorting the forces acting upon the reaching limb. Here, we investigate reach adaptation when error is created by systematically perturbing the target of the reach rather than the limb itself (Magescas and Prablanc in J Cogn Neurosci 18: 75–83, 2006). Specifically, we investigate how adaptation is affected by (1) the timing of the perturbation with respect to the movement of the eye and the hand and (2) participant awareness of the perturbation. In Experiment 1, participants looked and pointed to a target that disappeared either at the onset of their eye movement or shortly after their eye movement and then reappeared, displaced to the right, at the completion of the reach. In Experiment 2, we made the target displacement more explicit by leaving the target at its initial location until the end of the reach, at which point it was displaced to the right. In Experiment 3, we extinguished the target at the onset of the eye movement but also informed participants about the presence and magnitude of the perturbation. In the no-feedback post-test phase, participants for whom the target disappeared during the reach demonstrated much stronger aftereffects of the perturbation, misreaching to the right, whereas participants for whom the target stayed on until reach completion demonstrated rapid extinction of rightward misreaching. Furthermore, participants who were informed about the target perturbation exhibited faster de-adaptation than those who were not. Our results suggest that adaptation to a target displacement is contingent on the explicitness of the target perturbation, whether this is achieved by manipulating stimulus timing or instruction.

[1]  Tracy L. Faber,et al.  Role of posterior parietal cortex in the recalibration of visually guided reaching , 1996, Nature.

[2]  C. Bard,et al.  Deafferentation and pointing with visual double-step perturbations , 1999, Experimental Brain Research.

[3]  Susanne Ferber,et al.  Direct effects of prismatic lenses on visuomotor control: an event‐related functional MRI study , 2008, The European journal of neuroscience.

[4]  S. Coren,et al.  In Sensation and perception , 1979 .

[5]  Gordon M. Redding,et al.  Applications of prism adaptation: a tutorial in theory and method , 2005, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews.

[6]  C. Prablanc,et al.  Automatic Drive of Limb Motor Plasticity , 2006, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[7]  J. Krakauer,et al.  Sensory prediction errors drive cerebellum-dependent adaptation of reaching. , 2007, Journal of neurophysiology.

[8]  N. Ramnani The primate cortico-cerebellar system: anatomy and function , 2006, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[9]  L. Kaufman,et al.  Handbook of perception and human performance , 1986 .

[10]  Y. Rossetti,et al.  Preserved prism adaptation in bilateral optic ataxia: strategic versus adaptive reaction to prisms , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.

[11]  B. Bridgeman,et al.  Postsaccadic target blanking prevents saccadic suppression of image displacement , 1996, Vision Research.

[12]  L. Jakobson,et al.  Trajectories of reaches to prismatically-displaced targets: evidence for “automatic” visuomotor recalibration , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.

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

[14]  R. Shadmehr,et al.  Interacting Adaptive Processes with Different Timescales Underlie Short-Term Motor Learning , 2006, PLoS biology.

[15]  J. Krakauer,et al.  An Implicit Plan Overrides an Explicit Strategy during Visuomotor Adaptation , 2006, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[16]  H. Bekkering,et al.  Transfer of saccadic adaptation to the manual motor system , 1995 .

[17]  Yves Rossetti,et al.  Enhancing Visuomotor Adaptation by Reducing Error Signals: Single-step (Aware) versus Multiple-step (Unaware) Exposure to Wedge Prisms , 2007, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[18]  M. Goodale,et al.  Visual control of reaching movements without vision of the limb , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.

[19]  Konrad Paul Kording,et al.  Relevance of error: what drives motor adaptation? , 2009, Journal of neurophysiology.

[20]  Claude Prablanc,et al.  Two modes of error processing in reaching , 2009, Experimental Brain Research.

[21]  Jeroen B. J. Smeets,et al.  Avoiding moving obstacles , 2008, Experimental Brain Research.

[22]  Scott T. Grafton,et al.  Role of the posterior parietal cortex in updating reaching movements to a visual target , 1999, Nature Neuroscience.

[23]  Patrik Vuilleumier,et al.  Dynamic Changes in Brain Activity during Prism Adaptation , 2009, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[24]  J. Baizer,et al.  Cerebellar lesions and prism adaptation in macaque monkeys. , 1999, Journal of neurophysiology.

[25]  M. Hallett,et al.  Adaptation to lateral displacement of vision in patients with lesions of the central nervous system , 1983, Neurology.

[26]  F A Mussa-Ivaldi,et al.  Adaptive representation of dynamics during learning of a motor task , 1994, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[27]  C. Prablanc,et al.  Large adjustments in visually guided reaching do not depend on vision of the hand or perception of target displacement , 1986, Nature.

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

[29]  Zoubin Ghahramani,et al.  Perspectives and problems in motor learning , 2001, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.