The adaptability of self-action perception and movement control when the limb is passively versus actively moved
Introduction
For most of our daily actions we spend little time consciously thinking about the locations of our various body parts or how to make these body parts do the things we want them to do. Our sensorimotor system seems to effortlessly draw upon visual, proprioceptive, and vestibular feedback, and probably even upon knowledge of its foregoing commands, to update its estimates of limb and body position and then to fluidly guide our actions. The system is also highly flexible, for it can adapt motor output when we encounter novel environments. If the dynamics of a limb are altered or if visual feedback is distorted, accurate performance can be reacquired after repeated exposure to the distortion (e.g., Krakauer et al., 2000, Shadmehr and Mussa-Ivaldi, 1994, Welch, 1986). What processes drive this motor adaptation and what is the relationship between motor adaptation and our perceptual sense of limb position?
One influential model for motor adaptation suggests that the sensorimotor system uses a copy of an outgoing motor command (an efference copy) to make a prediction about forthcoming sensory feedback, a process called forward modeling (Tseng et al., 2007, Wolpert and Ghahramani, 2000). To the extent that the prediction fails to match the actual sensory outcome, motor updating and forward model updating are required. A similar mechanism is thought to underlie our attribution of agency to our actions (Cullen, 2004): If a comparison of predicted sensory feedback to actual sensory feedback produces a match, we attribute the action to ourselves, while a mismatch suggests that an external force has generated, or at least influenced, the sensory feedback.1
However, forward modeling for adaptation and forward modeling for agency attribution appear to be operating at cross-purposes. For motor adaptation, the greater the discordance between predicted and actual feedback, the greater the error signal should be and the larger the adaptive response. For agency attribution, on the other hand, the greater the sensory mismatch, the less agency should be attributed, and the less relevant the error signal should be for action modification. (Why modify motor commands when the error is not self-generated?) Research on credit assignment during error correction may resolve this apparent conflict by suggesting that agency attribution comes before motor adaptation. Wei and Kording (2009), for instance, have shown that the larger the error between the target and the reach endpoint, the smaller the weighting of the subsequent adaptive response. It has also been shown that gradual introduction of prismatic displacements produces more robust aftereffects than the sudden onset of a large displacement (Michel, Pisella, Prablanc, Rode, & Rossetti, 2007) and, further, that people who are informed about a prismatic shift adapt less than those who are not (Jakobson & Goodale, 1989). These prism studies suggest that the less aware people are of an external perturbation, and, accordingly, the more confident they are in their agency over the action, the stronger the adaptive response.
If the mechanisms for motor adaptation and sense of agency described in the foregoing paragraphs are correct, and if one further allows that a sense of agency over an action is required for motor adaptation to occur, then at least two claims should follow: (1) motor adaptation should only occur for actively generated movements, for only in these cases will an efference copy-based sensory prediction be produced, and (2) one’s sensory expectations about self-generated movement should adapt in tandem with one’s motor output. This second claim follows from the idea that sense of agency (i.e., one’s sense of having caused a movement) relies on congruency between sensory expectation and sensory outcome; if sensory expectation did not adapt, we would not claim agency for the perturbed feedback, and motor adaptation would stall. Thus, if visual feedback is altered during active movement, we should see a modification in both our motor output and our perceptual expectations about the visual feedback.
With respect to the first claim, the necessity of active movement for motor adaptation has not been definitively shown, although the position has been strongly argued and empirically supported by Held and colleagues (Held, 1965, Held and Hein, 1958, Held and Schlank, 1959). It certainly appears that active exposure to a prismatically-induced perturbation increases the amount of adaptation relative to passive exposure (Pick & Hay, 1965), although whether this is due to the presence of efference copy-based predictions or simply to enhanced proprioceptive feedback during active movement is not entirely clear (Welch, 1986). The ability of a patient with proprioceptive loss to adapt to a cursor rotation (Bernier, Chua, Bard, & Franks, 2006), however, does weigh in favor of the notion that efference copy plays a significant role in adaptation during active movement. Still, prism exposure experiments do appear to show that at least some adaptive response can be generated when participants are passively moved during exposure (Pick and Hay, 1965, Singer and Day, 1966; and see Welch (1986), for a review), suggesting that some form of motor adaptation can occur without efference copy. Such adaptation would presumably be the result of proprioceptive recalibration (i.e., a shift in proprioceptively-perceived limb position), which in turn results in modified active movement control.
As for the relationship between one’s perceptual expectations and motor adaptation, only one study, to our knowledge, has directly investigated it. Synofzik, Thier, and Lindner (2006) showed that people’s perception of their own actions and their motor output were modified as a result of exposure to rotated visual feedback of their hand during active movement. The researchers probed changes in perceptual expectations by having people report the outcome of an active movement in the absence of visual feedback. They probed motor adaptation by examining changes in goal-directed action in the absence of visual feedback. They argued that the changed perceptual expectations were a pre-requisite for the changed motor output, for, although they sometimes observed perceptual adaptation without accompanying motor adaptation, the researchers never observed motor adaptation without perceptual adaptation.
In short, Synofzik et al. (2006) have suggested that motor adaptation develops as a result of modification of an adaptable sensory prediction, a sensory prediction that is generated as a result of active movement. In other words, the sensory consequences of movements for which we claim agency are updated, and this updating leads to motor updating. With the present study we wanted to test whether similar sensory updating and motor adaptation might occur for movements over which we do not claim agency. Can sensory updating of active movements occur when visual exposure is constrained to passive movements? And if it can, does this also lead to motor adaptation? To address these questions, we occluded vision of the hand and forearm and projected a cursor over the location of the index finger. We gradually changed the gain between the finger’s motion and the motion of the cursor and then examined how this perturbed visual feedback influenced subsequent perception and control of the limb. In the passive case, we exposed participants to the cursor perturbation while their limb was moved by a motor and then we probed active movement perception and control on trials in which there was no vision of the cursor or the limb. The absence of the cursor on probe trials was important for assessing adaptive influences that were independent of the effects of visual capture. Visual capture, a phenomenon whereby one perceives the limb to be at the same location as a perturbed representation of it, would be expected to occur when the cursor is visible (Hay, Pick, & Ikeda, 1965).
We also investigated a secondary question, one that pertains to actively-guided movements: Might some of the perceptual updating observed by Synofzik et al. (2006) reflect recalibration of proprioception rather than an updated sensory prediction? There is some evidence that exposure to altered visual feedback during active movement recalibrates proprioception (Cressman and Henriques, 2009, Malfait et al., 2008, cf. Smeets et al., 2006, Wong and Henriques, 2009). To address this question we exposed participants to a cursor perturbation during active movements and then probed not only perception and control of active movements but also perception of passive movements. For the sake of completeness and clarity, we lay out below each of the questions that our experiment was designed to address:
Does exposure to visual feedback during passive movement of the limb influence perception of the passively moved limb? Does it influence perception of an actively moved limb? Does it influence goal-directed action?
Does exposure to visual feedback during active movement of the limb influence perception of the passively moved limb? Does it influence perception of an actively moved limb? Does it influence goal-directed action?
Section snippets
Participants
Seven participants (three female, four male) recruited from the university community took part in the study. All participants were self-reported right handed and had normal or corrected-to-normal vision. Ages ranged from 21 to 30. All participants provided informed consent prior to participation, and the study was conducted according to the guidelines of the University of British Columbia research ethics board.
Apparatus
Participants were seated at the apparatus depicted in Fig. 1, their left and right
Muscle activity on active and passive trials
Fig. 2 shows agonist (triceps) and antagonist (bicep) activity for each participant on the active target trials and passive exposure trials of the passive session. Each participant’s average EMG trace exhibits an agonist burst followed by an antagonist (braking) burst on the active target trials. Importantly, the agonist burst always precedes the onset of displacement of the manipulandum in the active target trials. This contrasts with the muscle activity on passive exposure trials, where there
Discussion
Our goal was to assess the impact of passive and active exposure on the perception and control of reaching movements. Synofzik et al. (2006) have already shown that people’s perception of their limb movements adapts in tandem with, and may even be a pre-requisite for, adaptation of goal-directed action. Their study, however, restricted visual feedback exposure to active movements. In the present study we introduced passive movements, movements to which we would not expect people to attribute
Conclusion
Our results show that passive exposure to a cursor gain perturbation produces proprioceptive recalibration and that this recalibration can influence not only the perception of active movements, but also their control. Thus, sensory conflict in the absence of efference-based sensory prediction does appear to affect perceptual and motor performance, though the effect is relatively small. Our results also suggest that active exposure to a cursor gain perturbation can lead to some proprioceptive
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Paul Nagelkerke for invaluable programming and technical assistance. This research was supported by a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) Discovery grant awarded to R. Chua.
References (40)
Sensory signals during active versus passive movement
Current Opinion in Neurobiology
(2004)- et al.
The rubber hand illusion in action
Neuropsychologia
(2009) - et al.
Updating of an internal model without proprioception: A deafferentation study
Neuroreport
(2006) - et al.
Rubber hands ‘feel’ touch that eyes see
Nature
(1998) - et al.
Reach adaptation to explicit vs. implicit target error
Experimental Brain Research
(2010) - et al.
Selective use of perceptual recalibration versus visuomotor skill acquisition
Journal of Neurophysiology
(2000) - et al.
Sensory recalibration of hand position following visuomotor adaptation
Journal of Neurophysiology
(2009) - et al.
Reach adaptation and proprioceptive recalibration following exposure to misaligned sensory input
Journal of Neurophysiology
(2010) Passive vs. active exposure and other variables related to the occurrence of hand adaptation to lateral displacement
Perceptual and Motor Skills
(1969)- et al.
Comparison of training methods in the production of prism adaptation
Journal of Experimental Psychology
(1969)
Abnormalities in the awareness and control of action
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B
Visual capture produced by prism spectacles
Psychonomic Science
Plasticity in sensory-motor systems
Scientific American
Adaptation to disarranged hand–eye coordination contingent upon reafferent stimulation
Perceptual and Motor Skills
Adaptation to disarranged eye–hand coordination in the distance-dimension
American Journal of Psychology
When mirrors lie: “Visual capture” of arm position impairs reaching performance
Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience
Reaching with alien limbs: Visual exposure to prosthetic hands in a mirror biases proprioception without accompanying illusions of ownership
Perception and Psychophysics
The role of proprioception and attention in a visuomotor adaptation task
Experimental Brain Research
Trajectories of reaches to prismatically-displaced targets: Evidence for “automatic” visuomotor recalibration
Experimental Brain Research
Directional tuning of human forearm muscle afferents during voluntary wrist movements
Journal of Physiology
Cited by (16)
Beyond the comparator model
2012, Consciousness and CognitionReduced feedback barely slows down proprioceptive recalibration
2022, Journal of NeurophysiologyImplicit motor learning within three trials
2021, Scientific ReportsImplicit learning is too fast to be a slow process
2020, bioRxiv