Adaptation to Visual Feedback Delay Influences Visuomotor Learning

Computational theory of motor control suggests that the brain continuously monitors motor commands, to predict their sensory consequences before actual sensory feedback becomes available. Such prediction error is a driving force of motor learning, and therefore appropriate associations between motor commands and delayed sensory feedback signals are crucial. Indeed, artificially introduced delays in visual feedback have been reported to degrade motor learning. However, considering our perceptual ability to causally bind our own actions with sensory feedback, demonstrated by the decrease in the perceived time delay following repeated exposure to an artificial delay, we hypothesized that such perceptual binding might alleviate deficits of motor learning associated with delayed visual feedback. Here, we evaluated this hypothesis by investigating the ability of human participants to adapt their reaching movements in response to a novel visuomotor environment with 3 visual feedback conditions—no-delay, sudden-delay, and adapted-delay. To introduce novelty into the trials, the cursor position, which originally indicated the hand position in baseline trials, was rotated around the starting position. In contrast to the no-delay condition, a 200-ms delay was artificially introduced between the cursor and hand positions during the presence of visual rotation (sudden-delay condition), or before the application of visual rotation (adapted-delay condition). We compared the learning rate (representing how the movement error modifies the movement direction in the subsequent trial) between the 3 conditions. In comparison with the no-delay condition, the learning rate was significantly degraded for the sudden-delay condition. However, this degradation was significantly alleviated by prior exposure to the delay (adapted-delay condition). Our data indicate the importance of appropriate temporal associations between motor commands and sensory feedback in visuomotor learning. Moreover, they suggest that the brain is able to account for such temporal associations in a flexible manner.

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

[2]  Masaya Hirashima,et al.  Intermittent Visual Feedback Can Boost Motor Learning of Rhythmic Movements: Evidence for Error Feedback Beyond Cycles , 2012, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[3]  Peter Thier,et al.  Internalizing agency of self-action: perception of one's own hand movements depends on an adaptable prediction about the sensory action outcome. , 2006, Journal of neurophysiology.

[4]  Hiroaki Gomi,et al.  Multiple Motor Learning Strategies in Visuomotor Rotation , 2010, PloS one.

[5]  J. Flanagan,et al.  Learning and recall of incremental kinematic and dynamic sensorimotor transformations , 2005, Experimental Brain Research.

[6]  Daichi Nozaki,et al.  Cross talk in implicit assignment of error information during bimanual visuomotor learning. , 2011, Journal of neurophysiology.

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

[8]  P. Haggard,et al.  Intentional action: Conscious experience and neural prediction , 2003, Consciousness and Cognition.

[9]  R. F. Thompson,et al.  Temporal specificity of long-term depression in parallel fiber--Purkinje synapses in rat cerebellar slice. , 1995, Learning & memory.

[10]  R. Held,et al.  PLASTICITY IN HUMAN SENSORIMOTOR CONTROL. , 1963, Science.

[11]  G. Stelmach,et al.  Adaptation to gradual as compared with sudden visuo-motor distortions , 1997, Experimental Brain Research.

[12]  Virginia A. Diggles,et al.  Rapid error correction during human arm movements: evidence for central monitoring. , 1984, Journal of motor behavior.

[13]  Madeleine Schlag-Rey,et al.  Voluntary action expands perceived duration of its sensory consequence , 2003, Experimental Brain Research.

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

[15]  Michael A. Arbib,et al.  The handbook of brain theory and neural networks , 1995, A Bradford book.

[16]  Zoubin Ghahramani,et al.  Computational principles of movement neuroscience , 2000, Nature Neuroscience.

[17]  Masaya Hirashima,et al.  Asymmetric Transfer of Visuomotor Learning between Discrete and Rhythmic Movements , 2010, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[18]  Reza Shadmehr,et al.  Learned dynamics of reaching movements generalize from dominant to nondominant arm. , 2003, Journal of neurophysiology.

[19]  Reza Shadmehr,et al.  Learning of action through adaptive combination of motor primitives , 2000, Nature.

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

[21]  E. Todorov Optimality principles in sensorimotor control , 2004, Nature Neuroscience.

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

[23]  L. Christensen,et al.  University of Birmingham Disruption of state estimation in the human lateral cerebellum , 2007 .

[24]  M. A. Arbib,et al.  Models of Trajectory Formation and Temporal Interaction of Reach and Grasp. , 1993, Journal of motor behavior.

[25]  Lennart Ljung,et al.  System Identification: Theory for the User , 1987 .

[26]  Michael I. Jordan,et al.  Optimal feedback control as a theory of motor coordination , 2002, Nature Neuroscience.

[27]  Sarah E. Criscimagna-Hemminger,et al.  Size of error affects cerebellar contributions to motor learning. , 2010, Journal of neurophysiology.

[28]  P. Montague,et al.  Motor-Sensory Recalibration Leads to an Illusory Reversal of Action and Sensation , 2006, Neuron.

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

[30]  D. Ostry,et al.  Is Interlimb Transfer of Force-Field Adaptation a Cognitive Response to the Sudden Introduction of Load? , 2004, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[31]  David C. Knill,et al.  Humans use continuous visual feedback from the hand to control both the direction and distance of pointing movements , 2005, Experimental Brain Research.

[32]  Britne A. Shabbott,et al.  Learning a visuomotor rotation: simultaneous visual and proprioceptive information is crucial for visuomotor remapping , 2010, Experimental Brain Research.

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

[34]  R. Miall,et al.  Adaptation to visual feedback delays in manual tracking: evidence against the Smith Predictor model of human visually guided action , 2006, Experimental Brain Research.

[35]  S. Kitazawa,et al.  Effects of delayed visual information on the rate and amount of prism adaptation in the human , 1995, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[36]  James L. Patton,et al.  A Real-Time Haptic/Graphic Demonstration of how Error Augmentation can Enhance Learning , 2005, Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

[37]  R. C. Oldfield THE ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS OF HANDEDNESS , 1971 .

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

[39]  Mitsuo Kawato,et al.  Cerebellum and motor control , 1998 .

[40]  D. Wolpert,et al.  Is the cerebellum a smith predictor? , 1993, Journal of motor behavior.

[41]  Scott T. Grafton,et al.  Forward modeling allows feedback control for fast reaching movements , 2000, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[42]  Reza Shadmehr,et al.  Learning from Sensory and Reward Prediction Errors during Motor Adaptation , 2011, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[43]  Alex Simpkins,et al.  System Identification: Theory for the User, 2nd Edition (Ljung, L.; 1999) [On the Shelf] , 2012, IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine.

[44]  M. Hinder,et al.  The contribution of visual feedback to visuomotor adaptation: How much and when? , 2008, Brain Research.

[45]  Stephan Riek,et al.  Real-time error detection but not error correction drives automatic visuomotor adaptation , 2010, Experimental Brain Research.

[46]  Hiroshi Imamizu,et al.  Physical delay but not subjective delay determines learning rate in prism adaptation , 2010, Experimental Brain Research.

[47]  D. Sparks,et al.  Corollary discharge provides accurate eye position information to the oculomotor system. , 1983, Science.

[48]  Kurt A. Thoroughman,et al.  Motor adaptation to single force pulses: sensitive to direction but insensitive to within-movement pulse placement and magnitude. , 2006, Journal of neurophysiology.

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

[50]  D. Whitaker,et al.  Effect before Cause: Supramodal Recalibration of Sensorimotor Timing , 2009, PloS one.

[51]  R. Shadmehr,et al.  Cerebellar Contributions to Adaptive Control of Saccades in Humans , 2009, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[52]  J. Krakauer,et al.  Error correction, sensory prediction, and adaptation in motor control. , 2010, Annual review of neuroscience.

[53]  Scott E. Bevans,et al.  Effect of visual error size on saccade adaptation in monkey. , 2003, Journal of neurophysiology.

[54]  Vincent S. Huang,et al.  Persistence of motor memories reflects statistics of the learning event. , 2009, Journal of neurophysiology.