scholarly journals Integration of proprioceptive and visual feedback during online control of reaching

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shoko Kasuga ◽  
Frédéric Crevecoeur ◽  
Kevin Patrick Cross ◽  
Parsa Balalaie ◽  
Stephen H. Scott
Keyword(s):  
Visual Feedback ◽  
Sensory Integration ◽  
Control Experiment ◽  
Online Control ◽  
Proprioceptive Feedback ◽  
Substantial Influence ◽  
Integration Model ◽  
Muscle Response ◽  
Complex Process ◽  
Visual Disturbances

Visual and proprioceptive feedback both contribute to perceptual decisions, but it remains unknown how these feedback signals are integrated together or consider factors such as delays and variance during online control. We investigated this question by having participants reach to a target with randomly applied mechanical and/or visual disturbances. We observed that the presence of visual feedback during a mechanical disturbance did not increase the size of the muscle response significantly but did decrease variance, consistent with a dynamic Bayesian integration model. In a control experiment we verified that vision had a potent influence when mechanical and visual disturbances were both present but opposite in sign. These results highlight a complex process for multi-sensory integration, where visual feedback has a relatively modest influence when the limb is mechanically disturbed, but a substantial influence when visual feedback becomes misaligned with the limb.

Feedback Modalities in Brain–Computer Interfaces: A Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
Vol 64 (1) ◽  
pp. 1186-1190
Author(s):  
Wakana Ishihara ◽  
Karen Moxon ◽  
Sheryl Ehrman ◽  
Mark Yarborough ◽  
Tina L. Panontin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Visual Feedback ◽  
Auditory Feedback ◽  
Brain Computer Interface ◽  
Tactile Feedback ◽  
Proprioceptive Feedback ◽  
Computer Interface ◽  
Computer Interfaces ◽  
Feedback Modalities ◽  
Improving Accuracy

This systematic review addresses the plausibility of using novel feedback modalities for brain–computer interface (BCI) and attempts to identify the best feedback modality on the basis of the effectiveness or learning rate. Out of the chosen studies, it was found that 100% of studies tested visual feedback, 31.6% tested auditory feedback, 57.9% tested tactile feedback, and 21.1% tested proprioceptive feedback. Visual feedback was included in every study design because it was intrinsic to the response of the task (e.g. seeing a cursor move). However, when used alone, it was not very effective at improving accuracy or learning. Proprioceptive feedback was most successful at increasing the effectiveness of motor imagery BCI tasks involving neuroprosthetics. The use of auditory and tactile feedback resulted in mixed results. The limitations of this current study and further study recommendations are discussed.

The Effects of Visual and Proprioceptive Feedback on Motor Learning

1975 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 162-165 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jack A. Adams ◽  
Daniel Gopher ◽  
Gavan Lintern
Keyword(s):  
Motor Learning ◽  
Visual Feedback ◽  
Sensory Feedback ◽  
Closed Loop ◽  
Motor Program ◽  
Absolute Error ◽  
Proprioceptive Feedback ◽  
Knowledge Of Results ◽  
And Performance ◽  
Effective Source

A self paced linear positioning task was used to study the effects of visual and proprioceptive feedback on learning and performance. Subjects were trained with knowledge of results (KR) and tested without it. The analysis of the absolute error scores of the no-KR trials is discussed in this paper. Visual feedback was the more effective source of sensory feedback, but proprioceptive feedback was also effective. An observation that the response did not become independent of sensory feedback as a result of learning, was interpreted as supporting Adams closed loop theory of motor learning in preference to the motor program hypothesis. Other data showed that the presence of visual feedback during learning could inhibit the later effectiveness of proprioceptive feedback.

scholarly journals Visual and proprioceptive feedback mechanisms of precision manual motor control in autism spectrum disorder

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robin L Shafer ◽  
Zheng Wang ◽  
James Bartolotti ◽  
Matthew W. Mosconi
Keyword(s):  
Autism Spectrum Disorder ◽  
Visual Feedback ◽  
Grip Force ◽  
Motor Behavior ◽  
Autism Spectrum ◽  
Spectrum Disorder ◽  
Proprioceptive Feedback ◽  
Force Variability ◽  
Tendon Vibration ◽  
Motor Behaviors

Abstract Background Individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) show deficits processing sensory feedback to reactively adjust ongoing motor behaviors. Atypical reliance on visual and proprioceptive feedback each have been reported during motor behaviors in ASD suggesting that impairments are not specific to one sensory domain but may instead reflect a deficit in multisensory processing, resulting in reliance on unimodal feedback. The present study tested this hypothesis by examining motor behavior across different visual and proprioceptive feedback conditions during a visually guided precision grip force test. Methods Participants with ASD (N = 43) and age-matched typically developing (TD) controls (N = 23), range 10–20 years, completed a test of precision gripping. They pressed on force sensors with their index finger and thumb while receiving visual feedback on a computer screen in the form of a horizontal bar that moved upwards with increased force. They were instructed to press so that the bar reached the level of a static target bar and then to hold their grip force as steadily as possible. Visual feedback was manipulated by changing the gain of the force bar. Proprioceptive feedback was manipulated by applying 80 Hz tendon vibration at the wrist to induce an illusion of muscle elongation. Force variability (standard deviation) and irregularity (sample entropy) were examined using multilevel linear models. Results While TD controls showed increased force variability with the tendon vibration on compared to off, individuals with ASD showed similar levels of force variability across tendon vibration conditions. Individuals with ASD showed stronger age-associated reductions in force variability relative to controls across conditions. The ASD group also showed greater age-associated increases in force irregularity relative to controls, especially at higher gain levels and when the tendon vibrator was turned on. Conclusions Our findings that individuals with ASD show similar levels of force variability and regularity during induced proprioceptive illusions suggest a reduced ability to integrate proprioceptive feedback information to guide ongoing precision manual motor behavior. We also document stronger age-associated gains in force control in ASD relative to TD suggesting delayed development of multisensory feedback control of motor behavior.

scholarly journals Touch as an auxiliary proprioceptive cue for movement control

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (6) ◽  
pp. eaaw3121 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Moscatelli ◽  
M. Bianchi ◽  
S. Ciotti ◽  
G. C. Bettelani ◽  
C. V. Parise ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Visual Feedback ◽  
Movement Control ◽  
External World ◽  
Ideal Observer ◽  
Proprioceptive Feedback ◽  
Systematic Deviation ◽  
Classical View ◽  
Observer Model ◽  
Perceptual Phenomenon

Recent studies extended the classical view that touch is mainly devoted to the perception of the external world. Perceptual tasks where the hand was stationary demonstrated that cutaneous stimuli from contact with objects provide the illusion of hand displacement. Here, we tested the hypothesis that touch provides auxiliary proprioceptive feedback for guiding actions. We used a well-established perceptual phenomenon to dissociate the estimates of reaching direction from touch and musculoskeletal proprioception. Participants slid their fingertip on a ridged plate to move toward a target without any visual feedback on hand location. Tactile motion estimates were biased by ridge orientation, inducing a systematic deviation in hand trajectories in accordance with our hypothesis. Results are in agreement with an ideal observer model, where motion estimates from different somatosensory cues are optimally integrated for the control of movement. These outcomes shed new light on the interplay between proprioception and touch in active tasks.

scholarly journals Visual Feedback Attitude Control Experiment of a Bias Momentum Micro Satellite

2004 ◽  
Vol 37 (6) ◽  
pp. 71-76
Author(s):  
Fuyuto Terui ◽  
Shinichi Kimura ◽  
Yasufumi Nagai ◽  
Hiroshi Yamamoto ◽  
Keisuke Yoshihara ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Visual Feedback ◽  
Attitude Control ◽  
Control Experiment

scholarly journals Interaction of Visual and Proprioceptive Feedback During Adaptation of Human Reaching Movements

2005 ◽  
Vol 93 (6) ◽  
pp. 3200-3213 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert A. Scheidt ◽  
Michael A. Conditt ◽  
Emanuele L. Secco ◽  
Ferdinando A. Mussa-Ivaldi
Keyword(s):  
Visual Feedback ◽  
Visual Information ◽  
Internal Representation ◽  
Proprioceptive Feedback ◽  
Reaching Movements ◽  
Movement Direction ◽  
Visual Channel ◽  
Hand Path ◽  
Motor Commands ◽  
Position Regulation

People tend to make straight and smooth hand movements when reaching for an object. These trajectory features are resistant to perturbation, and both proprioceptive as well as visual feedback may guide the adaptive updating of motor commands enforcing this regularity. How is information from the two senses combined to generate a coherent internal representation of how the arm moves? Here we show that eliminating visual feedback of hand-path deviations from the straight-line reach (constraining visual feedback of motion within a virtual, “visual channel”) prevents compensation of initial direction errors induced by perturbations. Because adaptive reduction in direction errors occurred with proprioception alone, proprioceptive and visual information are not combined in this reaching task using a fixed, linear weighting scheme as reported for static tasks not requiring arm motion. A computer model can explain these findings, assuming that proprioceptive estimates of initial limb posture are used to select motor commands for a desired reach and visual feedback of hand-path errors brings proprioceptive estimates into registration with a visuocentric representation of limb position relative to its target. Simulations demonstrate that initial configuration estimation errors lead to movement direction errors as observed experimentally. Registration improves movement accuracy when veridical visual feedback is provided but is not invoked when hand-path errors are eliminated. However, the visual channel did not exclude adjustment of terminal movement features maximizing hand-path smoothness. Thus visual and proprioceptive feedback may be combined in fundamentally different ways during trajectory control and final position regulation of reaching movements.

Amending Ongoing Upper-Limb Reaches: Visual and Proprioceptive Contributions?

2018 ◽  
Vol 31 (5) ◽  
pp. 455-480 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel Goodman ◽  
Valentin A. Crainic ◽  
Stephen R. Bested ◽  
Darrin O. Wijeyaratnam ◽  
John de Grosbois ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sensory Feedback ◽  
Sensory Modality ◽  
Theoretical Models ◽  
Online Control ◽  
Proprioceptive Feedback ◽  
Voluntary Action ◽  
Proprioceptive Information ◽  
Tendon Vibration ◽  
Directed Movement ◽  
Target Regulation

In order to maximize the precise completion of voluntary actions, humans can theoretically utilize both visual and proprioceptive information to plan and amend ongoing limb trajectories. Although vision has been thought to be a more dominant sensory modality, research has shown that sensory feedback may be processed as a function of its relevance and reliability. As well, theoretical models of voluntary action have suggested that both vision and proprioception can be used to prepare online trajectory amendments. However, empirical evidence regarding the use of proprioception for online control has come from indirect manipulations from the sensory feedback (i.e., without directly perturbing the afferent information; e.g., visual–proprioceptive mismatch). In order to directly assess the relative contributions of visual and proprioceptive feedback to the online control of voluntary actions, direct perturbations to both vision (i.e., liquid crystal goggles) and proprioception (i.e., tendon vibration) were implemented in two experiments. The first experiment employed the manipulations while participants simply performed a rapid goal-directed movement (30 cm amplitude). Results from this first experiment yielded no significant evidence that proprioceptive feedback contributed to online control processes. The second experiment employed an imperceptible target jump to elicit online trajectory amendments. Without or with tendon vibration, participants still corrected for the target jumps. The current study provided more evidence of the importance of vision for online control but little support for the importance of proprioception for online limb–target regulation mechanisms.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document