Proprioceptive recalibration in the right and left hands following abrupt visuomotor adaptation

The role of feedback in responding to gradual and abrupt visuo-proprioceptive cue conflict

When people observe conflicting visual and proprioceptive cues about their static hand position, visuo-proprioceptive recalibration results. Recalibration also occurs during gradual or abrupt visuomotor adaptation, in response to both the cue conflict and sensory prediction errors experienced as the hand reaches to a target. Here we asked whether creating a cue conflict gradually vs. abruptly, or providing error feedback, affects recalibration in a static hand. We examined participants' responses to a 70 mm visuo-proprioceptive conflict, imposed by shifting the visual cue forward from the proprioceptive cue (static left hand). Participants pointed with their unseen right hand to indicate perceived bimodal and unimodal cue positions. Conflict was introduced gradually (groups 1 and 2) or abruptly (groups 3 and 4), with performance feedback present (groups 2 and 4) or absent (groups 1 and 3). For abrupt groups, most behavioral change occurred immediately after the conflict began. No-feedback groups (1 and 3) showed comparable magnitudes of overall recalibration, indicating that abrupt and gradual conflicts result in similar recalibration but with different timings. Motor adaptation was evident in the indicator hand with performance feedback (groups 2 and 4). However, performance on a static ruler task suggests proprioceptive recalibration also occurred despite the presence of feedback. Control groups confirmed accurate performance on the pointing task despite the visual cue shift. These findings highlight the distinct timing of recalibration mechanisms for gradual versus abrupt cue conflicts and potential smaller contribution of error mechanisms for a static conflict.

New and Noteworthy

The brain may handle spatial conflicts between visual and proprioceptive cues differently for a dynamic hand undergoing visuomotor adaptation than for a static hand. In a static hand, abrupt conflict triggered immediate recalibration without further adjustment, and feedback had little impact on recalibration. This suggests varying roles of multisensory and error mechanisms across motor contexts, underscoring the importance of examining a variety of motor contexts to understand and predict behavior.

The Consolidation of Newly Learned Movements Depends upon the Somatosensory Cortex in Humans

Studies using magnetic brain stimulation indicate the involvement of somatosensory regions in the acquisition and retention of newly learned movements. Recent work found an impairment in motor memory when retention was tested shortly after the application of continuous theta-burst stimulation (cTBS) to the primary somatosensory cortex, compared with stimulation of the primary motor cortex or a control zone. This finding that the somatosensory cortex is involved in motor memory retention whereas the motor cortex is not, if confirmed, could alter our understanding of human motor learning. It would indicate that plasticity in sensory systems underlies newly learned movements, which is different than the commonly held view that adaptation learning involves updates to a motor controller. Here we test this idea. Participants were trained in a visuomotor adaptation task, with visual feedback gradually shifted. Following adaptation, cTBS was applied either to M1, S1, or an occipital cortex control area. Participants were tested for retention 24 h later. It was observed that S1 stimulation led to reduced retention of prior learning, compared with stimulation of M1 or the control area (with no significant difference between M1 and control). In a further control, cTBS was applied to S1 following training with unrotated feedback, in which no learning occurred. This had no effect on movement in the retention test indicating the effects of S1 stimulation on movement are learning specific. The findings are consistent with the S1 participation in the encoding of learning-related changes to movements and in the retention of human motor memory.

The independence of impairments in proprioception and visuomotor adaptation after stroke

BACKGROUND

Proprioceptive impairments are common after stroke and are associated with worse motor recovery and poor rehabilitation outcomes. Motor learning may also be an important factor in motor recovery, and some evidence in healthy adults suggests that reduced proprioceptive function is associated with reductions in motor learning. It is unclear how impairments in proprioception and motor learning relate after stroke. Here we used robotics and a traditional clinical assessment to examine the link between impairments in proprioception after stroke and a type of motor learning known as visuomotor adaptation.

METHODS

We recruited participants with first-time unilateral stroke and controls matched for overall age and sex. Proprioceptive impairments in the more affected arm were assessed using robotic arm position- (APM) and movement-matching (AMM) tasks. We also assessed proprioceptive impairments using a clinical scale (Thumb Localization Test; TLT). Visuomotor adaptation was assessed using a task that systematically rotated hand cursor feedback during reaching movements (VMR). We quantified how much participants adapted to the disturbance and how many trials they took to adapt to the same levels as controls. Spearman's rho was used to examine the relationship between proprioception, assessed using robotics and the TLT, and visuomotor adaptation. Data from healthy adults were used to identify participants with stroke who were impaired in proprioception and visuomotor adaptation. The independence of impairments in proprioception and adaptation were examined using Fisher's exact tests.

RESULTS

Impairments in proprioception (58.3%) and adaptation (52.1%) were common in participants with stroke (n = 48; 2.10% acute, 70.8% subacute, 27.1% chronic stroke). Performance on the APM task, AMM task, and TLT scores correlated weakly with measures of visuomotor adaptation. Fisher's exact tests demonstrated that impairments in proprioception, assessed using robotics and the TLT, were independent from impairments in visuomotor adaptation in our sample.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest impairments in proprioception may be independent from impairments in visuomotor adaptation after stroke. Further studies are needed to understand factors that influence the relationship between motor learning, proprioception and other rehabilitation outcomes throughout stroke recovery.

Effect of visuo-proprioceptive mismatch rate on recalibration in hand perception

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.

On the Role of Interoception in Body and Object Perception: A Multisensory-Integration Account

Various "embodied perception" phenomena suggest that what people sense of their body shapes what they perceive of the environment and that what they perceive of the environment shapes what they perceive of their bodies. For example, an observer's own hand can be felt where a fake hand is seen, events produced by own body movements seem to occur earlier than they did, and feeling a heavy weight at an observer's back may prompt hills to look steeper. Here we argue that such and various other phenomena are instances of multisensory integration of interoceptive signals from the body and exteroceptive signals from the environment. This overarching view provides a mechanistic description of what embodiment in perception means and how it works. It suggests new research questions while questioning a special role of the body itself and various phenomenon-specific explanations in terms of ownership, agency, or action-related scaling of visual information.

Effect of repeated explicit instructions on visuomotor adaptation and intermanual transfer

The aim of the present study was to investigate the effect of repeated explicit instructions on visuomotor adaptation, awareness, and intermanual transfer. In a comprehensive study design, 48 participants performed center-out reaching movements before and during exposure to a 60° rotation of visual feedback. Awareness and intermanual transfer were then determined. Twelve participants each were assigned to one of the following adaptation conditions: gradual adaptation, sudden adaptation without instructions, sudden adaptation with a single instruction before adaptation, and sudden adaptation with multiple instructions before and during adaptation. The explicit instructions explained the nature of the visual feedback perturbation and were given using an illustration of a clock face. Analysis of adaptation indices revealed neither increased nor decreased adaptation after repeated instructions compared with a single instruction. In addition, we found significant group differences for the awareness index, with lower awareness after gradual adaptation than after sudden, instructed adaptation. Our data also show increased initial adaptation in aware participants; regardless of whether awareness was developed independently or with instruction. Intermanual transfer did not differ between groups. However, we found a significant correlation between the awareness and intermanual transfer indices. We conclude that the magnitude of the explicit process cannot be further increased by repeated instruction and that intermanual transfer appears to be largely related to the explicit adaptation process.

Assessing Impairments in Visuomotor Adaptation After Stroke

Background:

Motor impairment in the arms is common after stroke and many individuals participate in therapy to improve function. It is assumed that individuals with stroke can adapt and improve their movements using feedback that arises from movement or is provided by a therapist. Here we investigated visuomotor adaptation in individuals with sub-acute and chronic stroke.

Objective:

We examined the impact of the stroke-affected arm (dominant or non-dominant), time post-stroke, and relationships with clinical measures of motor impairment and functional independence.

Methods:

Participants performed reaching movements with their arm supported in a robotic exoskeleton. We rotated the relationship between the motion of the participant’s hand and a feedback cursor displayed in their workspace. Outcome measures included the amount that participants adapted their arm movements and the number of trials they required to adapt.

Results:

Participants with stroke (n = 36) adapted less and required more trials to adapt than controls (n = 29). Stroke affecting the dominant arm impaired the amount of adaptation more than stroke affecting the non-dominant arm. Overall, 53% of participants with stroke were impaired in one or more measures of visuomotor adaptation. Initial adaptation was weakly correlated with time post-stroke, and the amount of adaptation correlated moderately with clinical measures of motor impairment and functional independence.

Conclusion:

Our findings reveal impairments in visuomotor adaptation that are associated with motor impairment and function after stroke. Longitudinal studies are needed to understand the relationship between adaptation and recovery attained in a therapy setting.

Improved proprioception does not benefit visuomotor adaptation

Visuomotor adaptation arises when reaching in an altered visual environment, where one's seen hand position does not match their felt (i.e., proprioceptive) hand position in space. Here, we asked if proprioceptive training benefits visuomotor adaptation, and if these benefits arise due to implicit (unconscious) or explicit (conscious strategy) processes. Seventy-two participants were divided equally into 3 groups: proprioceptive training with feedback (PTWF), proprioceptive training no feedback (PTNF), and Control (CTRL). The PTWF and PTNF groups completed passive proprioceptive training, where a participant's hand was moved to an unknown reference location and they judged the felt position of their unseen hand relative to their body midline on every trial. The PTWF group received verbal feedback with respect to their response accuracy on the middle 60% of trials, whereas the PTNF did not receive any feedback during training. The CTRL group did not complete proprioceptive training and instead sat quietly during this time. Following proprioceptive training or time delay, all three groups reached when seeing a cursor that was rotated 30° clockwise relative to their hand motion. The experiment ended with participants completing a series of no-cursor reaches to assess implicit and explicit adaptation. Results indicated that the PTWF group improved the accuracy of their sense of felt hand position following proprioceptive training. However, this improved proprioceptive acuity (i.e., the accuracy of their sense of felt hand) did not benefit visuomotor adaptation, as all three groups showed similar visuomotor adaptation across rotated reach training trials. Visuomotor adaptation arose implicitly, with minimal explicit contribution for all three groups. Together, these results suggest that passive proprioceptive training does not benefit, nor hinder, the extent of implicit visuomotor adaptation established immediately following reach training with a 30° cursor rotation.

The influence of awareness on implicit visuomotor adaptation

It is well documented that reaches are adapted when reaching with a visuomotor distortion (i.e., rotated cursor feedback). Less clear is the influence of awareness on visuomotor adaptation, where awareness encompasses knowledge of the changes in one's reaches and the visuomotor distortion itself. In the current experiment, we asked if awareness governs the magnitude of implicit (i.e., unconscious) visuomotor adaptation achieved, independent of how the distortion is introduced (i.e., abruptly vs. gradually introduced visuomotor distortion), and hence initial errors experienced. Participants were divided into two groups that differed with respect to how the visuomotor distortion was introduced (i.e., Abrupt vs. Gradual Groups) and reached in a virtual environment where a cursor on the screen misrepresented the position of their hand. Participants completed three blocks of 150 reach training trials in the following order: aligned cursor feedback (baseline), rotated cursor feedback (adaptation) and aligned cursor feedback (washout). For the Abrupt Group, the cursor was immediately rotated 45° clockwise (CW) relative to hand motion in the adaptation block, whereas in the Gradual Group, the 45° cursor rotation was gradually introduced over adaptation trials. Following reach training, participants' awareness of changes in their reaches and the visuomotor distortion were established based on a drawing task, where participants drew the path their hand took to get the cursor on target, as well as a post-experiment questionnaire. Participants were subsequently divided into the following 3 groups: Abrupt-Aware (n = 16), Gradual-Aware (n = 11) and Gradual-Unaware (n = 14). Results revealed that errors differed for the Gradual-Unaware Group at the end of adaptation training compared to the Gradual-Aware Group and at the start of the washout block compared to the Abrupt-Aware Group. Errors in the two aware groups did not differ from each other. These results suggest that awareness may lead to reduced implicit adaptation, regardless of the size of initial errors experienced.

Somatotopic Specificity of Perceptual and Neurophysiological Changes Associated with Visuo-proprioceptive Realignment

When visual and proprioceptive estimates of hand position disagree (e.g., viewing the hand underwater), the brain realigns them to reduce mismatch. This perceptual change is reflected in primary motor cortex (M1) excitability, suggesting potential relevance for hand movement. Here, we asked whether fingertip visuo-proprioceptive misalignment affects only the brain's representation of that finger (somatotopically focal), or extends to other parts of the limb that would be needed to move the misaligned finger (somatotopically broad). In Experiments 1 and 2, before and after misaligned or veridical visuo-proprioceptive training at the index finger, we used transcranial magnetic stimulation to assess M1 representation of five hand and arm muscles. The index finger representation showed an association between M1 excitability and visuo-proprioceptive realignment, as did the pinkie finger representation to a lesser extent. Forearm flexors, forearm extensors, and biceps did not show any such relationship. In Experiment 3, participants indicated their proprioceptive estimate of the fingertip, knuckle, wrist, and elbow, before and after misalignment at the fingertip. Proprioceptive realignment at the knuckle, but not the wrist or elbow, was correlated with realignment at the fingertip. These results suggest the effects of visuo-proprioceptive mismatch are somatotopically focal in both sensory and motor domains.

Proprioceptive recalibration following implicit visuomotor adaptation is preserved in Parkinson's disease

Individuals with Parkinson's disease (PD) and healthy adults demonstrate similar levels of visuomotor adaptation provided that the distortion is small or introduced gradually, and hence, implicit processes are engaged. Recently, implicit processes underlying visuomotor adaptation in healthy individuals have been proposed to include proprioceptive recalibration (i.e., shifts in one's proprioceptive sense of felt hand position to match the visual estimate of their hand experienced during reaches with altered visual feedback of the hand). In the current study, we asked if proprioceptive recalibration is preserved in PD patients. PD patients tested during their "off" and "on" medication states and age-matched healthy controls reached to visual targets, while visual feedback of their unseen hand was gradually rotated 30° clockwise or translated 4 cm rightwards of their actual hand trajectory. As expected, PD patients and controls produced significant reach aftereffects, indicating visuomotor adaptation after reaching with the gradually introduced visuomotor distortions. More importantly, following visuomotor adaptation, both patients and controls showed recalibration in hand position estimates, and the magnitude of this recalibration was comparable between PD patients and controls. No differences for any measures assessed were observed across medication status (i.e., PD off vs PD on). Results reveal that patients are able to adjust their sensorimotor mappings and recalibrate proprioception following adaptation to a gradually introduced visuomotor distortion, and that dopaminergic intervention does not affect this proprioceptive recalibration. These results suggest that proprioceptive recalibration does not involve striatal dopaminergic pathways and may contribute to the preserved visuomotor adaptation that arises implicitly in PD patients.

The effect of age on visuomotor learning processes

Knowing where our limbs are in space is essential for moving and for adapting movements to various changes in our environments and bodies. The ability to adapt movements declines with age, and age-related cognitive decline can explain a decreased ability to adopt and deploy explicit, cognitive strategies in motor learning. Age-related sensory decline could also lead to a reduced fidelity of sensory position signals and error signals, each of which can affect implicit motor adaptation. Here we investigate two estimates of limb position; one based on proprioception, the other on predicted sensory consequences of movements. Each is considered a measure of an implicit adaptation process and may be affected by both age and cognitive strategies. Both older (n = 38) and younger (n = 42) adults adapted to a 30° visuomotor rotation in a centre-out reaching task. We make an explicit, cognitive strategy available to half of participants in each age group with a detailed instruction. After training, we first quantify the explicit learning elicited by instruction. Instructed older adults initially use the provided strategy slightly less than younger adults but show a similar ability to evoke it after training. This indicates that cognitive explanations for age-related decline in motor learning are limited. In contrast, training induced much larger shifts of state estimates of hand location in older adults compared to younger adults. This is not modulated by strategy instructions, and appears driven by recalibrated proprioception, which is almost twice as large in older adults, while predictions might not be updated in older adults. This means that in healthy aging, some implicit processes may be compensating for other changes to maintain motor capabilities, while others also show age-related decline (data: https://osf.io/qzhmy).

Somatosensory changes associated with motor skill learning

Trial-and-error motor adaptation has been linked to somatosensory plasticity and shifts in proprioception (limb position sense). The role of sensory processing in motor skill learning is less understood. Unlike adaptation, skill learning involves the acquisition of new movement patterns in the absence of perturbation, with performance limited by the speed-accuracy trade-off. We investigated somatosensory changes during motor skill learning at the behavioral and neurophysiological levels. Twenty-eight healthy young adults practiced a maze-tracing task, guiding a robotic manipulandum through an irregular two-dimensional track featuring several abrupt turns. Practice occurred on days 1 and 2. Skill was assessed before practice on day 1 and again on day 3, with learning indicated by a shift in the speed-accuracy function between these assessments. Proprioceptive function was quantified with a passive two-alternative forced-choice task. In a subset of 15 participants, we measured short-latency afferent inhibition (SAI) to index somatosensory projections to motor cortex. We found that motor practice enhanced the speed-accuracy skill function ( F4,108 = 32.15, P < 0.001) and was associated with improved proprioceptive sensitivity at retention ( t22 = 24.75, P = 0.0031). Furthermore, SAI increased after training ( F1,14 = 5.41, P = 0.036). Interestingly, individuals with larger increases in SAI, reflecting enhanced somatosensory afference to motor cortex, demonstrated larger improvements in motor skill learning. These findings suggest that SAI may be an important functional mechanism for some aspect of motor skill learning. Further research is needed to test what parameters (task complexity, practice time, etc.) are specifically linked to somatosensory function.

NEW & NOTEWORTHY Somatosensory processing has been implicated in motor adaptation, where performance recovers from a perturbation such as a force field. We investigated somatosensory function during motor skill learning, where a new motor pattern is acquired in the absence of perturbation. After skill practice, we found changes in proprioception and short-latency afferent inhibition (SAI), signifying somatosensory change at both the behavioral and neurophysiological levels. SAI may be an important functional mechanism by which individuals learn motor skills.

Single-Pulse TMS over the Parietal Cortex Does Not Impair Sensorimotor Perturbation-Induced Changes in Motor Commands

Intermittent exposure to a sensorimotor perturbation, such as a visuomotor rotation, is known to cause a directional bias on the subsequent movement that opposes the previously experienced perturbation. To date, it is unclear whether the parietal cortex is causally involved in this postperturbation movement bias. In a recent electroencephalogram study, Savoie et al. (2018) observed increased parietal activity in response to an intermittent visuomotor perturbation, raising the possibility that the parietal cortex could subserve this change in motor behavior. The goal of the present study was to causally test this hypothesis. Human participants (N = 28) reached toward one of two visual targets located on either side of a fixation point, while being pseudorandomly submitted to a visuomotor rotation. On half of all rotation trials, single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) was applied over the right (N = 14) or left (N = 14) parietal cortex 150 ms after visual feedback provision. To determine whether TMS influenced the postperturbation bias, reach direction was compared on trials that followed rotation with (RS + 1) and without (R + 1) TMS. It was hypothesized that interfering with parietal activity would reduce the movement bias following rotated trials. Results revealed a significant and robust postrotation directional bias compared with both rotation and null rotation trials. Contrary to our hypothesis, however, neither left nor right parietal stimulation significantly impacted the postrotation bias. These data suggest that the parietal areas targeted here may not be critical for perturbation-induced motor output changes to emerge.

Effects of visuomotor delays on the control of movement and on perceptual localization in the presence and absence of visual targets

The sensory system constantly deals with delayed feedback. Recent studies showed that playing a virtual game of pong with delayed feedback caused hypermetric reaching movements. We investigated whether this effect is associated with a perceptual bias. In addition, we examined the importance of the target in causing hypermetric movements. In a first experiment, participants played a delayed pong game and blindly reached to presented targets. Following each reaching movement, they assessed the position of the invisible cursor. We found that participants performed hypermetric movements but reported that the invisible cursor reached the target, suggesting that they were unaware of the hypermetria and that their perception was biased toward the target rather than toward their hand position. In a second experiment, we removed the visual target, and strikingly, the hypermetria vanished. Moreover, participants reported that the invisible cursor was located with their hand. Taking these results together, we conclude that the adaptation to the visuomotor delay during the pong game selectively affected the execution of goal directed movements, resulting in hypermetria and perceptual bias when movements are directed toward visual targets but not when such targets are absent.NEW & NOTEWORTHY Recent studies showed that adaptation to visuomotor delays causes hypermetric movements in the absence of visual feedback, suggesting that visuomotor delay is represented using current state information. We report that this adaptation also affects perception. Importantly, both the motor and perceptual effects are selective to the representations that are used in the execution of goal-directed movements toward visual targets.

Split-Belt walking induces changes in active, but not passive, perception of step length

Successful motor control requires accurate estimation of our body in space for planning, executing, and evaluating the outcome of our actions. It has been shown that the estimation of limb position is susceptible to motor adaptation. However, a similar effect has not been found in locomotion, possibly due to how it was tested. We hypothesized that split-belt walking with the legs moving at different speeds changes the estimation of the legs' position when taking a step. Thus, we assessed young subjects' perception of step length (i.e., inter-feet distance at foot landing) when they moved their legs (active perception) or when the legs were moved by the experimenter (passive perception). We found that the active perception of step length was substantially altered following split-belt walking, whereas passive perception exhibited minor changes. This suggests that split-belt walking induced the adaptation of efferent signals, without altering sensory signals. We also found that active perceptual shifts were sensitive to how they were tested: they were most salient in the trailing leg and at short step lengths. Our results suggest that split-belt walking could modulate the deficient perception of step length post-stroke, which may contribute to gait asymmetries impairing patients' mobility.

Visual and proprioceptive recalibrations after exposure to a visuomotor rotation

Adaptation to a visuomotor rotation in a cursor-control task is accompanied by proprioceptive recalibration, whereas the existence of visual recalibration is uncertain and has even been doubted. In the present study, we tested both visual and proprioceptive recalibration; proprioceptive recalibration was not only assessed by means of psychophysical judgments of the perceived position of the hand, but also by an indirect procedure based on movement characteristics. Participants adapted to a gradually introduced visuomotor rotation of 30° by making center-out movements to remembered targets. In subsequent test trials, they made center-out movements without visual feedback or observed center-out motions of a cursor without moving the hand. In each test trial, they judged the endpoint of hand or cursor by matching the position of the hand or of a visual marker, respectively, moving along a semicircular path. This path ran through all possible endpoints of the center-out movements. We observed proprioceptive recalibration of 7.3° (3.1° with the indirect procedure) and a smaller, but significant, visual recalibration of 1.3°. Total recalibration of 8.6° was about half as strong as motor adaptation, the adaptive shift of the movement direction. The evidence of both proprioceptive and visual recalibration was obtained with a judgment procedure that suggests that recalibration is restricted to the type of movement performed during exposure to a visuomotor rotation. Consequently, identical physical positions of the hand can be perceived differently depending on how they have been reached, and similarly identical positions of a cursor on a monitor can be perceived differently.

Movements following force-field adaptation are aligned with altered sense of limb position

Previous work has shown that motor learning is associated with changes to both movements and to the somatosensory perception of limb position. In an earlier study that motivates the current work, it appeared that following washout trials, movements did not return to baseline but rather were aligned with associated changes to sensed limb position. Here, we provide a systematic test of this relationship, examining the idea that adaptation-related changes to sensed limb position and to the path of the limb are linked, not only after washout trials but at all stages of the adaptation process. We used a force-field adaptation paradigm followed by washout trials in which subjects performed movements without visual feedback of the limb. Tests of sensed limb position were conducted at each phase of adaptation, specifically before and after baseline movements in a null field, after force-field adaptation, and following washout trials in a null field. As in previous work, sensed limb position changed in association with force-field adaptation. At each stage of adaptation, we observed a correlation between the sensed limb position and associated path of the limb. At a group level, there were differences between the clockwise and counter-clockwise conditions. However, whenever there were changes in sensed limb position, movements following washout did not return to baseline. This suggests that adaptation in sensory and motor systems is not independent processes but rather sensorimotor adaptation is linked to sensory change. Sensory change and limb movement remain in alignment throughout adaptation such that the path of the limb is aligned with the altered sense of limb position.

Making Sense of Cerebellar Contributions to Perceptual and Motor Adaptation

The cerebellum is thought to adapt movements to changes in the environment in order to update an implicit understanding of the association between our motor commands and their sensory consequences. This trial-by-trial motor recalibration in response to external perturbations is frequently impaired in people with cerebellar damage. In healthy people, adaptation to motor perturbations is also known to induce a form of sensory perceptual recalibration. For instance, hand-reaching adaptation tasks produce transient changes in the sense of hand position, and walking adaptation tasks can lead to changes in perceived leg speed. Though such motor adaptation tasks are heavily dependent on the cerebellum, it is not yet understood how the cerebellum is associated with these accompanying sensory recalibration processes. Here we asked if the cerebellum is required for the recalibration of leg-speed perception that normally occurs alongside locomotor adaptation, as well as how ataxia severity is related to sensorimotor recalibration deficits in patients with cerebellar damage. Cerebellar patients performed a speed-matching task to assess perception of leg speed before and after walking on a split-belt treadmill, which has two belts driving each leg at a different speed. Healthy participants update their perception of leg speed following split-belt walking such that the "fast" leg during adaptation feels slower afterwards, whereas cerebellar patients have significant deficits in this sensory perceptual recalibration. Furthermore, our analysis demonstrates that ataxia severity is a crucial factor for both the sensory and motor adaptation impairments that affect patients with cerebellar damage.

Somatosensory perceptual training enhances motor learning by observing

Action observation activates brain regions involved in sensory-motor control. Recent research has shown that action observation can also facilitate motor learning; observing a tutor undergoing motor learning results in functional plasticity within the motor system and gains in subsequent motor performance. However, the effects of observing motor learning extend beyond the motor domain. Converging evidence suggests that observation also results in somatosensory functional plasticity and somatosensory perceptual changes. This work has raised the possibility that the somatosensory system is also involved in motor learning that results from observation. Here we tested this hypothesis using a somatosensory perceptual training paradigm. If the somatosensory system is indeed involved in motor learning by observing, then improving subjects' somatosensory function before observation should enhance subsequent motor learning by observing. Subjects performed a proprioceptive discrimination task in which a robotic manipulandum moved the arm, and subjects made judgments about the position of their hand. Subjects in a Trained Learning group received trial-by-trial feedback to improve their proprioceptive perception. Subjects in an Untrained Learning group performed the same task without feedback. All subjects then observed a learning video showing a tutor adapting her reaches to a left force field. Subjects in the Trained Learning group, who had superior proprioceptive acuity before observation, benefited more from observing learning than subjects in the Untrained Learning group. Improving somatosensory function can therefore enhance subsequent observation-related gains in motor learning. This study provides further evidence in favor of the involvement of the somatosensory system in motor learning by observing. NEW & NOTEWORTHY We show that improving somatosensory performance before observation can improve the extent to which subjects learn from watching others. Somatosensory perceptual training may prime the sensory-motor system, thereby facilitating subsequent observational learning. The findings of this study suggest that the somatosensory system supports motor learning by observing. This finding may be useful if observation is incorporated as part of therapies for diseases affecting movement, such as stroke.

Movement and perception recalibrate differently across multiple days of locomotor learning

Learning a new movement through error-based adaptation leads to recalibration of movement and altered perception of that movement. Although presumed to be closely related, the relationship between adaptation-based motor and perceptual changes is not well understood. Here we investigated the changes in motor behavior and leg speed perception over 5 days of split-belt treadmill adaptation. We specifically wanted to know if changes in the perceptual domain would demonstrate savings-like behavior (i.e., less recalibration with more practice) and if these changes would parallel the savings observed in the motor domain. We found that the recalibration of leg speed perception decreased across days of training, indicating savings-like behavior in this domain. However, we observed that the magnitude of savings across days was different between motor and perceptual domains. These findings suggest a degree of independence between the motor and perceptual processes that occur with locomotor adaptation. NEW & NOTEWORTHY Error-based adaptation learning drives changes in movement and perception of movement. Are these changes across domains linked or simply coincidental? Here, we studied changes in movement and perception across 5 days of repeated locomotor adaptation. Savings-like behavior in the motor and perceptual domains developed with different magnitudes and over different timescales, leading us to conclude that motor and perceptual processes operate at least somewhat independently during locomotor adaptation.

Long-term retention of proprioceptive recalibration

Sensorimotor changes are well documented following reaches with altered visual feedback of the hand. Specifically, reaches are adapted and proprioceptive estimates of felt hand position shifted in the direction of the visual feedback experienced. While research has examined one's ability to retain reach adaptation, limited attention has been given to the retention of proprioceptive recalibration. This experiment examined retention of proprioceptive recalibration in the form of recall and savings (i.e., faster proprioceptive recalibration on subsequent testing days) over an extended period of time (i.e., four days). As well, we looked to determine the benefits of additional training on short-term retention (i.e., one day) of proprioceptive recalibration. Twenty-four participants trained to reach to a visual target while seeing a cursor that was rotated 30° clockwise relative to their hand on an initial day of testing. Half of the participants then completed additional reach training trials on 4 subsequent testing days (Training group), whereas the second half of participants did not complete additional training until Day 5 (Non-Training group). Participants provided estimates of their felt hand position on all 5 testing days to establish retention of proprioceptive recalibration. Results revealed that proprioceptive recalibration was recalled 24 h after initial training across all participants. Recall of proprioceptive recalibration was not observed on subsequent testing days for the Non-Training group, while recall of proprioceptive recalibration was retained at a similar level across all subsequent testing days for the Training group. Retention of proprioceptive recalibration in the form of savings was observed on Day 5 in the Non-Training group. These results reveal that short-term recall of proprioceptive recalibration does not benefit from additional training. Moreover, the different time scales (i.e., retention in the form of recall seen only at 24 h after initial training versus savings observed 4 days after initial training in the Non-Training group), suggest that distinct processes may underlie recall and savings of proprioceptive recalibration.

Time Course of Reach Adaptation and Proprioceptive Recalibration during Visuomotor Learning

Training to reach with rotated visual feedback results in adaptation of hand movements, which persist when the perturbation is removed (reach aftereffects). Training also leads to changes in felt hand position, which we refer to as proprioceptive recalibration. The rate at which motor and proprioceptive changes develop throughout training is unknown. Here, we aim to determine the timescale of these changes in order to gain insight into the processes that may be involved in motor learning. Following six rotated reach training trials (30° rotation), at three radially located targets, we measured reach aftereffects and perceived hand position (proprioceptive guided reaches). Participants trained with opposing rotations one week apart to determine if the original training led to any retention or interference. Results suggest that both motor and proprioceptive recalibration occurred in as few as six rotated-cursor training trials (7.57° & 3.88° respectively), with no retention or interference present one week after training. Despite the rapid speed of both motor and sensory changes, these shifts do not saturate to the same degree. Thus, different processes may drive these changes and they may not constitute a single implicit process.

Separating Predicted and Perceived Sensory Consequences of Motor Learning

During motor adaptation the discrepancy between predicted and actually perceived sensory feedback is thought to be minimized, but it can be difficult to measure predictions of the sensory consequences of actions. Studies attempting to do so have found that self-directed, unseen hand position is mislocalized in the direction of altered visual feedback. However, our lab has shown that motor adaptation also leads to changes in perceptual estimates of hand position, even when the target hand is passively displaced. We attribute these changes to a recalibration of hand proprioception, since in the absence of a volitional movement, efferent or predictive signals are likely not involved. The goal here is to quantify the extent to which changes in hand localization reflect a change in the predicted sensory (visual) consequences or a change in the perceived (proprioceptive) consequences. We did this by comparing changes in localization produced when the hand movement was self-generated (‘active localization’) versus robot-generated (‘passive localization’) to the same locations following visuomotor adaptation to a rotated cursor. In this passive version, there should be no predicted consequences of these robot-generated hand movements. We found that although changes in localization were somewhat larger in active localization, the passive localization task also elicited substantial changes. Our results suggest that the change in hand localization following visuomotor adaptation may not be based entirely on updating predicted sensory consequences, but may largely reflect changes in our proprioceptive state estimate.

Spatial action-effect binding

The temporal interval between an action and its ensuing effect is perceptually compressed. Specifically, the perceived onset of actions is shifted towards their effects in time and, vice versa, the perceived onset of effects is shifted towards their causing actions. In four experiments, we report evidence showing that action-effect binding also occurs in the spatial domain. Participants controlled the location of a visual stimulus by performing stylus movements before they judged either the position of the stylus or the position of the visual stimulus. The results yielded spatial binding between the perceived stylus position and the perceived stimulus position when the stimulus was under full control of the hand movement compared to control conditions without direct control.

Sensory Plasticity in Human Motor Learning

There is accumulating evidence from behavioral, neurophysiological, and neuroimaging studies that the acquisition of motor skills involves both perceptual and motor learning. Perceptual learning alters movements, motor learning, and motor networks of the brain. Motor learning changes perceptual function and the sensory circuits of the brain. Here, we review studies of both human limb movement and speech that indicate that plasticity in sensory and motor systems is reciprocally linked. Taken together, this points to an approach to motor learning in which perceptual learning and sensory plasticity have a fundamental role.

Split-belt walking adaptation recalibrates sensorimotor estimates of leg speed but not position or force

Motor learning during reaching not only recalibrates movement but can also lead to small but consistent changes in the sense of arm position. Studies have suggested that this sensory effect may be the result of recalibration of a forward model that associates motor commands with their sensory consequences. Here we investigated whether similar perceptual changes occur in the lower limbs after learning a new walking pattern on a split-belt treadmill--a task that critically involves proprioception. Specifically, we studied how this motor learning task affects perception of leg speed during walking, perception of leg position during standing or walking, and perception of contact force during stepping. Our results show that split-belt adaptation leads to robust motor aftereffects and alters the perception of leg speed during walking. This is specific to the direction of walking that was trained during adaptation (i.e., backward or forward). The change in leg speed perception accounts for roughly half of the observed motor aftereffect. In contrast, split-belt adaptation does not alter the perception of leg position during standing or walking and does not change the perception of stepping force. Our results demonstrate that there is a recalibration of a sensory percept specific to the domain of the perturbation that was applied during walking (i.e., speed but not position or force). Furthermore, the motor and sensory consequences of locomotor adaptation may be linked, suggesting overlapping mechanisms driving changes in the motor and sensory domains.

Generalization patterns for reach adaptation and proprioceptive recalibration differ after visuomotor learning

Visuomotor learning results in changes in both motor and sensory systems (Cressman EK, Henriques DY. J Neurophysiol 102: 3505-3518, 2009), such that reaches are adapted and sense of felt hand position recalibrated after reaching with altered visual feedback of the hand. Moreover, visuomotor learning has been shown to generalize such that reach adaptation achieved at a trained target location can influence reaches to novel target directions (Krakauer JW, Pine ZM, Ghilardi MF, Ghez C. J Neurosci 20: 8916-8924, 2000). We looked to determine whether proprioceptive recalibration also generalizes to novel locations. Moreover, we looked to establish the relationship between reach adaptation and changes in sense of felt hand position by determining whether proprioceptive recalibration generalizes to novel targets in a similar manner as reach adaptation. On training trials, subjects reached to a single target with aligned or misaligned cursor-hand feedback, in which the cursor was either rotated or scaled in extent relative to hand movement. After reach training, subjects reached to the training target and novel targets (including targets from a second start position) without visual feedback to assess generalization of reach adaptation. Subjects then performed a proprioceptive estimation task, in which they indicated the position of their hand relative to visual reference markers placed at similar locations as the trained and novel reach targets. Results indicated that shifts in hand position generalized across novel locations, independent of reach adaptation. Thus these distinct sensory and motor generalization patterns suggest that reach adaptation and proprioceptive recalibration arise from independent error signals and that changes in one system cannot guide adjustments in the other.

Retention of proprioceptive recalibration following visuomotor adaptation

We have recently shown that visuomotor adaptation following reaches with a misaligned cursor not only induces changes in an individual's motor output, but their proprioceptive sense of hand position as well. Long-term changes are seen in motor adaptation; however, very little is known about the retention of changes in felt hand position. We sought to evaluate whether this recalibration in proprioception, following visuomotor adaptation, is sufficiently robust to be retained the following day (~24 h later), and if so, to determine its extent. Visuomotor adaptation was induced by having subjects perform reaches to visual targets using a cursor representing their unseen hand, which had been gradually rotated 45° counterclockwise. Motor adaptation and proprioceptive recalibration were determined by assessing subjects' reach aftereffects and changes in hand bias, respectively. We found that subjects adapted their reaches and recalibrated their sense of hand position following training with a misaligned cursor, as shown in Cressman and Henriques (J Neurophysiol 102:3505-3518, 2009). More importantly, subjects who showed proprioceptive recalibration in the direction of motor adaptation on Day 1 did retain changes in felt hand position and motor adaptation on Day 2. These findings suggest that in addition to motor changes, individuals are capable of retaining sensory changes in proprioception up to 24 h later.

The cerebellum is not necessary for visually driven recalibration of hand proprioception

Decades of research have implicated both cortical and subcortical areas, such as the cerebellum, as playing an important role in motor learning, and even more recently, in predicting the sensory consequences of movement. Still, it is unknown whether the cerebellum also plays a role in recalibrating sensory estimates of hand position following motor learning. To test this, we measured proprioceptive estimates of static hand position in 19 cerebellar patients with local ischemic lesions and 19 healthy controls, both before and after reach training with altered visual feedback of the hand. This altered visual feedback, (30° cursor-rotation) was gradually introduced in order to facilitate reach adaptation in the patient group. We included two different types of training (in separate experiments): the typical visuomotor rotation training where participants had full volition of their hand movements when reaching with the cursor, and sensory exposure training where the direction of participants׳ hand movements were constrained and gradually deviated from the cursor motion (Cressman, E. K., Henriques, D. Y., 2010. Reach adaptation and proprioceptive recalibration following exposure to misaligned sensory input. J. Neurophysiol., vol. 103, pp. 1888-1895). We found that both healthy individuals and patients showed equivalent shifts in their felt hand position following both types of training. Likewise, as expected given that the cursor-rotation was introduced gradually, patients showed comparable reach aftereffects to those of controls in both types of training. The robust change in felt hand position across controls and cerebellar patients suggests that the cerebellum is not involved in proprioceptive recalibration of the hand.

Reach adaptation and proprioceptive recalibration following terminal visual feedback of the hand

We have shown that when subjects reach with continuous, misaligned visual feedback of their hand, their reaches are adapted and proprioceptive sense of hand position is recalibrated to partially match the visual feedback (Salomonczyk et al., 2011). It is unclear if similar changes arise after reaching with visual feedback that is provided only at the end of the reach (i.e., terminal feedback), when there are shorter temporal intervals for subjects to experience concurrent visual and proprioceptive feedback. Subjects reached to targets with an aligned hand-cursor that provided visual feedback at the end of each reach movement across a 99-trial training block, and with a rotated cursor over three successive blocks of 99 trials each. After each block, no cursor reaches, to measure aftereffects, and felt hand positions were measured. Felt hand position was determined by having subjects indicate the position of their unseen hand relative to a reference marker. We found that subjects adapted their reaches following training with rotated terminal visual feedback, yet slightly less (i.e., reach aftereffects were smaller), than subjects from a previous study who experienced continuous visual feedback. Nonetheless, current subjects recalibrated their sense of felt hand position in the direction of the altered visual feedback, but this proprioceptive change increased incrementally over the three rotated training blocks. Final proprioceptive recalibration levels were comparable to our previous studies in which subjects performed the same task with continuous visual feedback. Thus, compared to reach training with continuous, but altered visual feedback, subjects who received terminal altered visual feedback of the hand produced significant but smaller reach aftereffects and similar changes in hand proprioception when given extra training. Taken together, results suggest that terminal feedback of the hand is sufficient to drive motor adaptation, and also proprioceptive recalibration.

The effect of visuomotor adaptation on proprioceptive localization: the contributions of perceptual and motor changes

Reaching movements are rapidly adapted following training with rotated visual feedback of the hand (motor recalibration). Our laboratory has also found that visuomotor adaptation results in changes in estimates of felt hand position (proprioceptive recalibration) in the direction of the visuomotor distortion (Cressman and Henriques 2009, 2010; Cressman et al. 2010). In the present study, we included an additional method for measuring hand proprioception [specifically, proprioceptive-guided reaches of the unadapted (left) hand to the robot-guided adapted (right) hand-target] and compared this with our original perceptual task (estimating the felt hand position of the adapted hand relative to visual reference markers/the body midline), as well as to no-cursor reaches with the adapted hand (reaching to visual and midline-targets), to better identify whether changes in reaching following adaptation to a 50° rightward-rotated cursor reflect sensory or motor processes. Results for the proprioceptive estimation task were consistent with previous findings; subjects felt their hand to be aligned with a reference marker when it was shifted approximately 4° more in the direction of the visuomotor distortion following adaptation compared with baseline conditions. Moreover, we found similar changes in the proprioceptive-guided reaching task such that subjects misreached 5° in the direction of the cursor rotation. However, these results were true only for proprioceptive-guided reaches to the adapted hand, as reaches to the body midline were not affected by adaptation. This suggests that proprioceptive recalibration is restricted to the adapted hand and does not generalize to the rest of the body; this truly reflects a change in the sensory representation of the hand rather than changes in the motor program. This is in contrast to no-cursor reaches made with the adapted hand, which show reach after-effects for both visual targets and the midline, suggesting that reaches with the adapted hand reflect more of a change in the motor system. Our results also shed light on previous studies that may have misattributed these sensory and motor changes.

Intermanual transfer and proprioceptive recalibration following training with translated visual feedback of the hand

Reaching with visual feedback that is misaligned with respect to the actual hand's location leads to changes in reach trajectories (i.e., visuomotor adaptation). Previous studies have also demonstrated that when training to reach with misaligned visual feedback of the hand, the opposite hand also partially adapts, providing evidence of intermanual transfer. Moreover, our laboratory has shown that visuomotor adaptation to a misaligned hand cursor, either translated or rotated relative to the hand, also leads to changes in felt hand position (what we call proprioceptive recalibration), such that subjects' estimate of felt hand position relative to both visual and non-visual reference markers (e.g., body midline) shifts in the direction of the visuomotor distortion. In the present study, we first determined the extent that motor adaptation to a translated cursor leads to transfer to the opposite hand, and whether this transfer differs across the dominant and non-dominant hands. Second, we looked to establish whether changes in hand proprioception that occur with the trained hand following adaptation also transfer to the untrained hand. We found intermanual motor transfer to the left untrained (non-dominant) hand after subjects trained their right (dominant) hand to reach with translated visual feedback of their hand. Motor transfer from the left trained to the right untrained hand was not observed. Despite finding changes in felt hand position in both trained hands, we did not find similar evidence of proprioceptive recalibration in the right or left untrained hands. Taken together, our results suggest that unlike visuomotor adaptation, proprioceptive recalibration does not transfer between hands and is specific only to the arm exposed to the distortion.

The role of the cross-sensory error signal in visuomotor adaptation

Reaching to targets with misaligned visual feedback of the hand leads to changes in proprioceptive estimates of hand position and reach aftereffects. In such tasks, subjects are able to make use of two error signals: the discrepancy between the desired and actual movement, known as the sensorimotor error signal, and the discrepancy between visual and proprioceptive estimates of hand position, which we refer to as the cross-sensory error signal. We have recently shown that mere exposure to a sensory discrepancy in the absence of goal-directed movement (i.e. no sensorimotor error signal) is sufficient to produce similar changes in felt hand position and reach aftereffects. Here, we sought to determine the extent that this cross-sensory error signal can contribute to proprioceptive recalibration and movement aftereffects by manipulating the magnitude of this signal in the absence of volitional aiming movements. Subjects pushed their hand out along a robot-generated linear path that was gradually rotated clockwise relative to the path of a cursor. On all trials, subjects viewed a cursor that headed directly towards a remembered target while their hand moved out synchronously. After exposure to a 30° rotated hand-cursor distortion, subjects recalibrated their sense of felt hand position and adapted their reaches. However, no additional increases in recalibration or aftereffects were observed following further increases in the cross-sensory error signal (e.g. up to 70°). This is in contrast to our previous study where subjects freely reached to targets with misaligned visual hand position feedback, hence experiencing both sensorimotor and cross-sensory errors, and the distortion magnitude systematically predicted increases in proprioceptive recalibration and reach aftereffects. Given these findings, we suggest that the cross-sensory error signal results in changes to felt hand position which drive partial reach aftereffects, while larger aftereffects that are produced after visuomotor adaptation (and that vary with the size of distortion) are related to the sensorimotor error signal.