Sensory integration during reaching: the effects of manipulating visual target availability

The integration of action-oriented multisensory information from target and limb within the movement planning and execution

The planning and execution of a grasping or reaching movement toward targets we sense with the other hand requires integrating multiple sources of sensory information about the limb performing the movement and the target of the action. In the last two decades, several sensory and motor control theories have thoroughly described how this multisensory-motor integration process occurs. However, even though these theories were very influential in their respective field, they lack a clear, unified vision of how target-related and movement-related multisensory information integrates within the action planning and execution phases. This brief review aims to summarize the most influential theories in multisensory integration and sensory-motor control by underscoring their critical points and hidden connections, providing new ideas on the multisensory-motor integration process. Throughout the review, I wll propose an alternative view of how the multisensory integration process unfolds along the action planning and execution and I will make several connections with the existent multisensory-motor control theories.

A brief glimpse at a haptic target is sufficient for multisensory integration in reaching movements

Goal-directed aiming movements toward visuo-haptic targets (i.e., seen and handheld targets) are generally more precise than those toward visual only or haptic only targets. This multisensory advantage stems from a continuous inflow of haptic and visual target information during the movement planning and execution phases. However, in everyday life, multisensory movements often occur without the support of continuous visual information. Here we investigated whether and to what extent limiting visual information to the initial stage of the action still leads to a multisensory advantage. Participants were asked to reach a handheld target while vision was briefly provided during the movement planning phase (50 ms, 100 ms, 200 ms of vision before movement onset), or during the planning and early execution phases (400 ms of vision), or during the entire movement. Additional conditions were performed in which only haptic target information was provided, or, only vision was provided either briefly (50 ms, 100 ms, 200 ms, 400 ms) or throughout the entire movement. Results showed that 50 ms of vision before movement onset were sufficient to trigger a direction-specific visuo-haptic integration process that increased endpoint precision. We conclude that, when a continuous support of vision is not available, endpoint precision is determined by the less recent, but most reliable multisensory information rather than by the latest unisensory (haptic) inputs.

Multisensory Integration in Stroke Patients: A Theoretical Approach to Reinterpret Upper-Limb Proprioceptive Deficits and Visual Compensation

For reaching and grasping, as well as for manipulating objects, optimal hand motor control arises from the integration of multiple sources of sensory information, such as proprioception and vision. For this reason, proprioceptive deficits often observed in stroke patients have a significant impact on the integrity of motor functions. The present targeted review attempts to reanalyze previous findings about proprioceptive upper-limb deficits in stroke patients, as well as their ability to compensate for these deficits using vision. Our theoretical approach is based on two concepts: first, the description of multi-sensory integration using statistical optimization models; second, on the insight that sensory information is not only encoded in the reference frame of origin (e.g., retinal and joint space for vision and proprioception, respectively), but also in higher-order sensory spaces. Combining these two concepts within a single framework appears to account for the heterogeneity of experimental findings reported in the literature. The present analysis suggests that functional upper limb post-stroke deficits could not only be due to an impairment of the proprioceptive system per se, but also due to deficiencies of cross-references processing; that is of the ability to encode proprioceptive information in a non-joint space. The distinction between purely proprioceptive or cross-reference-related deficits can account for two experimental observations: first, one and the same patient can perform differently depending on specific proprioceptive assessments; and a given behavioral assessment results in large variability across patients. The distinction between sensory and cross-reference deficits is also supported by a targeted literature review on the relation between cerebral structure and proprioceptive function. This theoretical framework has the potential to lead to a new stratification of patients with proprioceptive deficits, and may offer a novel approach to post-stroke rehabilitation.

Both reaching and grasping are impacted by temporarily induced paresthesia

Along with visual feedback, somatosensory feedback provides the nervous system with information regarding movement performance. Somatosensory system damage disrupts the normal feedback process, which can lead to a pins and needles sensation, or paresthaesia, and impaired movement control. The present study assessed the impact of temporarily induced median nerve paresthaesia, in individuals with otherwise intact sensorimotor function, on goal-directed reaching and grasping movements. Healthy, right-handed participants performed reach and grasp movements to five wooden Efron shapes, of which three were selected for analysis. Participants performed the task without online visual feedback and in two somatosensory conditions: 1) normal; and 2) disrupted somatosensory feedback. Disrupted somatosensory feedback was induced temporarily using a Digitimer (DS7AH) constant current stimulator. Participants' movements to shapes 15 or 30 cm to the right of the hand's start position were recorded using a 3 D motion analysis system at 300 Hz (Optotrak 3 D Investigator). Analyses revealed no significant differences for reaction time. Main effects for paresthaesia were observed for temporal and spatial aspects of the both the reach and grasp components of the movements. Although participants scaled their grip aperture to shape size under paresthaesia, the movements were smaller and more variable. Overall participants behaved as though they perceived they were performing larger and faster movements than they actually were. We suggest the presence of temporally induced paresthaesia affected online control by disrupting somatosensory feedback of the reach and grasp movements, ultimately leading to smaller forces and fewer corrective movements.

Adaptation to proprioceptive targets following visuomotor adaptation

In the following study, we asked if reaches to proprioceptive targets are updated following reach training with a gradually introduced visuomotor perturbation. Subjects trained to reach with distorted hand-cursor feedback, such that they saw a cursor that was rotated or translated relative to their actual hand movement. Following reach training trials with the cursor, subjects reached to Visual (V), Proprioceptive (P) and Visual + Proprioceptive (VP) targets with no visual feedback of their hand. Comparison of reach endpoints revealed that reaches to VP targets followed similar trends as reaches to P targets, regardless of the training distortion introduced. After reaching with a rotated cursor, subjects adapted their reaches to all target types in a similar manner. However, after reaching with a translated cursor, subjects adapted their reach to V targets only. Taken together, these results show that following training with a visuomotor distortion, subjects primarily rely on proprioceptive information when reaching to VP targets. Furthermore, results indicate that reach adaptation to P targets depends on the distortion presented. Training with a rotation distortion leads to changes in reaches to both V and P targets, while a translation distortion, which introduces a constant discrepancy between visual and proprioceptive estimates of hand position throughout the reach, affects changes to V but not P targets.