Effect of visuo-proprioceptive mismatch rate on recalibration in hand perception.
Effect of visuo-proprioceptive mismatch rate on recalibration in hand perception.
复制标题
视觉本体感觉失配率对手部感知重新校准的影响。
DOI：
10.1007/s00221-023-06685-8
复制
发表时间：
2023
影响因子：
2
通讯作者：
Block,HannahJ
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Babu,Reshma;Lee-Miller,Trevor;Wali,Manasi;Block,HannahJ
我们通过结合相关的视觉和本体感觉线索来估计手的位置。通过棱镜观察手，或者最近旋转代表手位置的视觉光标，可以产生跨感官空间失配。这通常是在目标导向的背景下完成的，以研究运动适应，系统更新运动命令以响应系统运动误差。然而，视觉本体感觉不匹配也会引起手的看到和感觉到的位置之间关系的重新校准。与运动适应相比，人们对视觉本体感觉重新校准的原理知之甚少。例如，无论光标旋转得快还是慢，运动适应都会稳健地发生，尽管前者可能涉及更明确的过程。在这里，我们询问在没有运动适应的情况下视觉本体感觉重新校准是否以同样的方式起作用。三组人以慢速、中速或快速速率（每两次试验分别为 0.84、1.67 或 3.34 毫米）体验到手部 70 毫米的视觉本体感觉不匹配，且没有错误反馈。一旦达到，70 毫米的错配将在其余试验中保持。各组之间的总重新校准差异显着，快速、中速和慢速组平均重新校准分别为 63.7、56.3 和 42.8 毫米。这表明较慢的错配率在引发重新校准方面可能效果较差。与运动适应研究相反，在维持阶段没有观察到进一步的重新校准。这可能与被认为有助于通过跨感官线索冲突与感官预测误差进行感知重新校准的不同机制有关。
We estimate our hand’s position by combining relevant visual and proprioceptive cues. A cross-sensory spatial mismatch can be created by viewing the hand through a prism or, more recently, rotating a visual cursor that represents hand position. This is often done in the context of target-directed reaching to study motor adaptation, the systematic updating of motor commands in response to a systematic movement error. However, a visuo-proprioceptive mismatch also elicits recalibration in the relationship between the hand’s seen and felt position. The principles governing visuo-proprioceptive recalibration are poorly understood, compared to motor adaptation. For example, motor adaptation occurs robustly whether the cursor is rotated quickly or slowly, although the former may involve more explicit processes. Here, we asked whether visuo-proprioceptive recalibration, in the absence of motor adaptation, works the same way. Three groups experienced a 70 mm visuo-proprioceptive mismatch about their hand at a Slow, Medium, or Fast rate (0.84, 1.67, or 3.34 mm every two trials, respectively), with no error feedback. Once attained, the 70 mm mismatch was maintained for the remaining trials. Total recalibration differed significantly across groups, with the Fast, Medium, and Slow groups recalibrating 63.7, 56.3, and 42.8 mm on average, respectively. This suggests a slower mismatch rate may be less effective at eliciting recalibration. In contrast to motor adaptation studies, no further recalibration was observed in the maintenance phase. This may be related to the distinct mechanisms thought to contribute to perceptual recalibration via cross-sensory cue conflict versus sensory prediction errors.