Crossmodal representation of a functional robotic hand arises after extensive training in healthy participants

The way in which humans represent their own bodies is critical in guiding their interactions with the environment. To achieve successful body-space interactions, the body representation is strictly connected with that of the space immediately surrounding it through efficient visuo-tactile crossmodal integration. Such a body-space integrated representation is not fixed, but can be dynamically modulated by the use of external tools. Our study aims to explore the effect of using a complex tool, namely a functional prosthesis, on crossmodal visuo-tactile spatial interactions in healthy participants. By using the crossmodal visuo-tactile congruency paradigm, we found that prolonged training with a mechanical hand capable of distal hand movements and providing sensory feedback induces a pattern of interference, which is not observed after a brief training, between visual stimuli close to the prosthesis and touches on the body. These results suggest that after extensive, but not short, training the functional prosthesis acquires a visuo-tactile crossmodal representation akin to real limbs. This finding adds to previous evidence for the embodiment of functional prostheses in amputees, and shows that their use may also improve the crossmodal combination of somatosensory feedback delivered by the prosthesis with visual stimuli in the space around it, thus effectively augmenting the patients' visuomotor abilities.

[1]  A. Farnè,et al.  Visuo-tactile representation of near-the-body space , 2004, Journal of Physiology-Paris.

[2]  A. Maravita,et al.  Tools for the body (schema) , 2004, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[3]  Charles Spence,et al.  Response Requirements Modulate Tactile Spatial Congruency Evects for Example, given That the Body Can Adopt a Variety of Diverent Postures, a Tactile Sensation Arising , 2022 .

[4]  Robert D. Lipschutz,et al.  Targeted muscle reinnervation for real-time myoelectric control of multifunction artificial arms. , 2009, JAMA.

[5]  E. Macaluso,et al.  Supramodal Effects of Covert Spatial Orienting Triggered by Visual or Tactile Events , 2002, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[6]  T. Kuiken,et al.  Sensory capacity of reinnervated skin after redirection of amputated upper limb nerves to the chest , 2009, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[7]  Olaf Blanke,et al.  Manipulable Objects Facilitate Cross-Modal Integration in Peripersonal Space , 2011, PloS one.

[8]  G. Lundborg,et al.  Sensory substitution in prosthetics. , 2001, Hand clinics.

[9]  R. Dolan,et al.  Threatening a rubber hand that you feel is yours elicits a cortical anxiety response , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[10]  C. Eriksen,et al.  Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task , 1974 .

[11]  Robert D. Lipschutz,et al.  The use of targeted muscle reinnervation for improved myoelectric prosthesis control in a bilateral shoulder disarticulation amputee , 2004, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[12]  D. Lloyd Spatial limits on referred touch to an alien limb may reflect boundaries of visuo-tactile peripersonal space surrounding the hand , 2007, Brain and Cognition.

[13]  S. Aglioti,et al.  The body in the brain revisited , 2009, Experimental Brain Research.

[14]  C. Spence,et al.  Tool-use changes multimodal spatial interactions between vision and touch in normal humans , 2002, Cognition.

[15]  John R. Williams DECLARATION OF HELSINKI , 1964 .

[16]  G. Rizzolatti,et al.  Coding of peripersonal space in inferior premotor cortex (area F4). , 1996, Journal of neurophysiology.

[17]  M. Tanaka,et al.  Coding of modified body schema during tool use by macaque postcentral neurones. , 1996, Neuroreport.

[18]  Keehoon Kim,et al.  Robotic touch shifts perception of embodiment to a prosthesis in targeted reinnervation amputees. , 2011, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[19]  Alessandro Farnè,et al.  Peripersonal Space and Body Schema: Two Labels for the Same Concept? , 2009, Brain Topography.

[20]  C. Spence,et al.  Multisensory interactions follow the hands across the midline: Evidence from a non-spatial visual–tactile congruency task , 2006, Brain Research.

[21]  C. Spence,et al.  Attention and the crossmodal construction of space , 1998, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[22]  Scott H. Johnson-Frey Taking action : cognitive neuroscience perspectives on intentional acts , 2003 .

[23]  S. Aglioti,et al.  The body in the brain: neural bases of corporeal awareness , 1997, Trends in Neurosciences.

[24]  Blair A. Lock,et al.  Redirection of cutaneous sensation from the hand to the chest skin of human amputees with targeted reinnervation , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[25]  T. Arai,et al.  A fMRI study of the Cross-Modal Interaction in the Brain with an Adaptable EMG Prosthetic Hand with Biofeedback , 2006, 2006 International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[26]  C. Gross,et al.  Coding of visual space by premotor neurons. , 1994, Science.

[27]  Charles Spence,et al.  Temporal aspects of the visuotactile congruency effect , 2006, Neuroscience Letters.

[28]  L. Holmes,et al.  Anatomic and etiological classification of congenital limb deficiencies , 2011, American journal of medical genetics. Part A.

[29]  E. Macaluso,et al.  The representation of space near the body through touch and vision , 2010, Neuropsychologia.

[30]  Ehud Zohary,et al.  Is That Near My Hand? Multisensory Representation of Peripersonal Space in Human Intraparietal Sulcus , 2007, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[31]  C. Fraser,et al.  An evaluation of the use made of cosmetic and functional prostheses by unilateral upper limb amputees , 1998, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[32]  Francesco Pavani,et al.  Multisensory contributions to the 3-D representation of visuotactile peripersonal space in humans: evidence from the crossmodal congruency task , 2004, Journal of Physiology-Paris.

[33]  Enea F Pavone,et al.  Electrophysiological correlates of crossmodal visual distractor congruency effects: Evidence for response conflict , 2008, Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience.

[34]  Leonardo Chelazzi,et al.  The costly filtering of potential distraction: evidence for a supramodal mechanism. , 2013, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[35]  Ryu Kato,et al.  Control strategy for a myoelectric hand: Measuring acceptable time delay in human intention discrimination , 2009, 2009 Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[36]  James T. Townsend,et al.  The Stochastic Modeling of Elementary Psychological Processes , 1983 .

[37]  H. Fawkner,et al.  The use of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) to aid perceptual embodiment of prosthetic limbs. , 2009, Medical hypotheses.

[38]  Jonathan D. Cohen,et al.  Rubber hands ‘feel’ touch that eyes see , 1998, Nature.

[39]  Hiroshi Yokoi,et al.  Development of a multi-DOF electromyography prosthetic system using the adaptive joint mechanism , 2006 .

[40]  C. Spence,et al.  Spatial constraints on visual-tactile cross-modal distractor congruency effects , 2004, Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience.

[41]  Alessandro Farnè,et al.  Neuropsychological evidence of modular organization of the near peripersonal space , 2005, Neurology.

[42]  H. Ehrsson,et al.  Behavioural Brain Research , 1999 .

[43]  M. Graziano Where is my arm? The relative role of vision and proprioception in the neuronal representation of limb position. , 1999, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[44]  B. Gandevia,et al.  DECLARATION OF HELSINKI. , 1964, The Medical journal of Australia.

[45]  C. Murray,et al.  An interpretative phenomenological analysis of the embodiment of artificial limbs , 2004, Disability and rehabilitation.

[46]  R. Passingham,et al.  That's My Hand! Activity in Premotor Cortex Reflects Feeling of Ownership of a Limb , 2004, Science.

[47]  C. Spence,et al.  Visual Capture of Touch: Out-of-the-Body Experiences With Rubber Gloves , 2000, Psychological science.

[48]  E. Macaluso,et al.  Spatial attention and crossmodal interactions between vision and touch , 2001, Neuropsychologia.

[49]  Charles Spence,et al.  Cross-modal congruency and visual capture in a visual elevation-discrimination task , 2003, Experimental Brain Research.

[50]  H. Ehrsson,et al.  Upper limb amputees can be induced to experience a rubber hand as their own , 2008, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[51]  Dana D. Damian,et al.  Sensory-Motor Coupling in Rehabilitation Robotics , 2008 .

[52]  J. Maunsell,et al.  Touching a Rubber Hand: Feeling of Body Ownership Is Associated with Activity in Multisensory Brain Areas , 2005, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[53]  F. Vignemont,et al.  Habeas Corpus: The Sense of Ownership of One ' s Own Body , 2007 .

[54]  Tobias Heed,et al.  Others' Actions Reduce Crossmodal Integration in Peripersonal Space , 2010, Current Biology.

[55]  Regine Zopf,et al.  Crossmodal congruency measures of lateral distance effects on the rubber hand illusion , 2010, Neuropsychologia.

[56]  T. Kuiken Targeted reinnervation for improved prosthetic function. , 2006, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Clinics of North America.

[57]  Silvia Bonifazi,et al.  The role played by tool-use and tool-length on the Plastic Elongation of peri-hand space: a single case study , 2005, Cognitive neuropsychology.