Reach-relevant somatosensory signals modulate tactile suppression.

Tactile stimuli on moving limbs are typically attenuated during reach planning and execution. This phenomenon has been related to internal forward models that predict the sensory consequences of a movement. Tactile suppression is considered to occur due to a match between the actual and predicted sensory consequences of a movement, which might free capacities to process novel or task-relevant sensory signals. Here, we examined whether and how tactile suppression depends on the relevance of somatosensory information for reaching. Participants reached with their left or right index finger to the unseen index finger of their other hand (body target) or an unseen pad on a screen (external target). In the body target condition, somatosensory signals from the static hand were available for localizing the reach target. Vibrotactile stimuli were presented on the moving index finger before or during reaching or in a separate no-movement baseline block, and participants indicated whether they detected a stimulus. As expected, detection thresholds before or during reaching were higher compared with baseline. Tactile suppression was also stronger for reaches to body targets than external targets, as reflected by higher detection thresholds and lower precision of detectability. Moreover, detection thresholds were higher when reaching with the left than with the right hand. Our results suggest that tactile suppression is modulated by position signals from the target limb that are required to reach successfully to the own body. Moreover, limb dominance seems to affect tactile suppression, presumably due to disparate uncertainty of feedback signals from the moving limb.NEW & NOTEWORTHY Tactile suppression on a moving limb has been suggested to release computational resources for processing other relevant sensory events. In the current study, we show that tactile sensitivity on the moving limb decreases more when reaching to body targets than external targets. This indicates that tactile perception can be modulated by allocating processing capacities to movement-relevant somatosensory information at the target location. Our results contribute to understanding tactile processing and predictive mechanisms in the brain.

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

[2]  Philip N. Sabes,et al.  Flexible strategies for sensory integration during motor planning , 2005, Nature Neuroscience.

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

[4]  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.

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

[6]  C. E. Chapman,et al.  Sensory perception during movement in man , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.

[7]  P. Bédard,et al.  Allocation of attention for dissociated visual and motor goals , 2013, Experimental Brain Research.

[8]  H. Deubel,et al.  Independent Allocation of Attention to Eye and Hand Targets in Coordinated Eye-Hand Movements , 2011, Psychological science.

[9]  Romeo Chua,et al.  Goal-Directed Aiming: Correcting a Force-Specification Error With the Right and Left Hands. , 1999, Journal of motor behavior.

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

[11]  F A Wichmann,et al.  Ning for Helpful Comments and Suggestions. This Paper Benefited Con- Siderably from Conscientious Peer Review, and We Thank Our Reviewers the Psychometric Function: I. Fitting, Sampling, and Goodness of Fit , 2001 .

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

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

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

[15]  Konrad Paul Kording,et al.  Estimating the sources of motor errors for adaptation and generalization , 2008, Nature Neuroscience.

[16]  C. E. Chapman,et al.  Time course and magnitude of movement-related gating of tactile detection in humans. III. Effect of motor tasks. , 2002, Journal of neurophysiology.

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

[18]  Eli Brenner,et al.  Robust movement segmentation by combining multiple sources of information , 2010, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

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

[20]  Robert L. Sainburg,et al.  Dynamic dominance varies with handedness: reduced interlimb asymmetries in left-handers , 2012, Experimental Brain Research.

[21]  R. Sainburg,et al.  Dynamic Dominance Persists During Unsupported Reaching , 2012, Journal of motor behavior.

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