Mechanisms of proprioceptive realignment in human motor learning

Somatosensory cortex and body representation: Updating the motor system during a visuo-proprioceptive cue conflict

The brain's representation of hand position is critical for voluntary movement. Representation is multisensory, relying on both visual and proprioceptive cues. When these cues conflict, the brain recalibrates its unimodal estimates, shifting them closer together to compensate. Converging lines of evidence from research in perception, behavior, and neurophysiology suggest that such updates to body representation must be communicated to the motor system to keep hand movements accurate. We hypothesized that primary somatosensory cortex (S1) plays a crucial role in conveying the proprioceptive aspects of the updated body representation to the motor system. We tested this hypothesis in two experiments. We predicted that proprioceptive, but not visual, recalibration would be associated with change in short latency afferent inhibition (SAI), a measure of sensorimotor integration (influence of sensory input on motor output) (Expt. 1). We further predicted that modulating S1 activity with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) should affect variance and recalibration associated with the proprioceptive estimate of hand position, but have no effect on the visual estimate (Expt. 2). Our results are consistent with these predictions, supporting the idea that (1) S1 is indeed a key region in facilitating motor system updates based on changes in body representation, and (2) this function is mediated by unisensory (proprioceptive) processing, upstream of multisensory visuo-proprioceptive computations. Other aspects of the body representation (visual and multisensory) may be conveyed to the motor system via separate pathways, e.g. from posterior parietal regions to motor cortex.

Significance Statement

Representation of the hand, which is critical for accurate control of movement, comes from weighting and combining available proprioceptive and visual cues. Our results suggest that when the hand representation is modified, the motor system receives updates directly from the primary somatosensory cortex (S1). These updates are proprioceptive, having not yet been integrated with visual cues through interaction with high-level posterior parietal regions. This might provide advantages in terms of faster updates, for example, because multisensory integration likely adds processing time. Research seeking to manipulate motor control via multisensory perception (e.g., virtual reality or mirror training for motor rehabilitation) should therefore consider the parallel unisensory and multisensory pathways that affect the motor system.

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.

Different Sensory Information Is Used for State Estimation when Stationary or Moving

The accurate estimation of limb state is necessary for movement planning and execution. While state estimation requires both feedforward and feedback information, we focus here on the latter. Prior literature has shown that integrating visual and proprioceptive feedback improves estimates of static limb position. However, differences in visual and proprioceptive feedback delays suggest that multisensory integration could be disadvantageous when the limb is moving. We formalized this hypothesis by modeling feedback-based state estimation using the long-standing maximum likelihood estimation model of multisensory integration, which we updated to account for sensory delays. Our model predicted that the benefit of multisensory integration was largely lost when the limb was passively moving. We tested this hypothesis in a series of experiments in human subjects that compared the degree of interference created by discrepant visual or proprioceptive feedback when estimating limb position either statically at the end of the movement or dynamically at movement midpoint. In the static case, we observed significant interference: discrepant feedback in one modality systematically biased sensory estimates based on the other modality. However, no interference was seen in the dynamic case: participants could ignore sensory feedback from one modality and accurately reproduce the motion indicated by the other modality. Together, these findings suggest that the sensory feedback used to compute a state estimate differs depending on whether the limb is stationary or moving. While the former may tend toward multimodal integration, the latter is more likely to be based on feedback from a single sensory modality.

Minimal impact of chronic proprioceptive loss on implicit sensorimotor adaptation and perceived movement outcome

Implicit sensorimotor adaptation keeps our movements well calibrated amid changes in the body and environment. We have recently postulated that implicit adaptation is driven by a perceptual error: the difference between the desired and perceived movement outcome. According to this perceptual realignment model, implicit adaptation ceases when the perceived movement outcome-a multimodal percept determined by a prior belief conveying the intended action, the motor command, and feedback from proprioception and vision-is aligned with the desired movement outcome. Here, we examined the role of proprioception in implicit motor adaptation and perceived movement outcome by examining individuals who experience deafferentation (i.e., individuals with impaired proprioception and touch). We used a modified visuomotor rotation task designed to isolate implicit adaptation and probe perceived movement outcomes throughout the experiment. Surprisingly, both implicit adaptation and perceived movement outcome were minimally impacted by chronic deafferentation, posing a challenge to the perceptual realignment model of implicit adaptation.NEW & NOTEWORTHY We tested six individuals with chronic somatosensory deafferentation on a novel task that isolates implicit sensorimotor adaptation and probes perceived movement outcome. Strikingly, both implicit motor adaptation and perceptual movement outcome were not significantly impacted by chronic deafferentation, posing a challenge for theoretical models of adaptation that involve proprioception.

The role of explicit knowledge in compensating for a visuo-proprioceptive cue conflict

It is unclear how explicit knowledge of an externally imposed mismatch between visual and proprioceptive cues of hand position affects perceptual recalibration. The Bayesian causal inference framework might suggest such knowledge should abolish the visual and proprioceptive recalibration that occurs when individuals perceive these cues as coming from the same source (their hand), while the visuomotor adaptation literature suggests explicit knowledge of a cue conflict does not eliminate implicit compensatory processes. Here we compared visual and proprioceptive recalibration in three groups with varying levels of knowledge about the visuo-proprioceptive cue conflict. All participants estimated the position of visual, proprioceptive, or combined targets related to their left index fingertip, with a 70 mm visuo-proprioceptive offset gradually imposed. Groups 1, 2, and 3 received no information, medium information, and high information, respectively, about the offset. Information was manipulated using instructional and visual cues. All groups performed the task similarly at baseline in terms of variance, weighting, and integration. Results suggest the three groups recalibrated vision and proprioception differently, but there was no difference in variance or weighting. Participants who received only instructional cues about the mismatch (Group 2) did not recalibrate less, on average, than participants provided no information about the mismatch (Group 1). However, participants provided instructional cues and extra visual cues of their hands during the perturbation (Group 3) demonstrated significantly less recalibration than other groups. These findings are consistent with the idea that instructional cues alone are insufficient to override participants' intrinsic belief in common cause and reduce recalibration.

Enhanced boxing punch impact with silicone cushioning

Introduction

Elastic cushioning materials protect human tissue from injury by absorbing impact energy and delaying its transfer. However, the potential compromise in force delivery to the hitting target remains unknown.

Methods

To examine if silicone cushioning compromises punch force delivery to a hitting target, a double-blind crossover trial with 12 elite boxers was conducted following material tests. Each boxer delivered five maximal punches under two conditions: silicone-hand wrapping and gauze-hand wrapping, in counterbalanced order, with a 3-day interval between sessions. Force distribution along the Z-axis indicated the punch's intended direction, while forces along the X and Y axes represented force dissipation toward unwanted direction.

Results

The material tests (based on ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA) demonstrated substantially higher compression to disruption for silicone than gauze of similar thickness. During the punching trials, the silicon-based hand wrapping exhibited slightly higher total force production (436 ± 33 N vs. 372 ± 12 N, p < 0.001) than the gauze-based hand wrapping. Moreover, force wastage, calculated as the sum of forces along the X and Y axes vs. the total force produced in percentage, was notably lower for silicone material (2.0% wastage) compared to gauze (3.8% wastage) (p < 0.001). The use of silicone materials lengthened the contact time between the punching fist and the hitting target from 35 ms to 50 ms (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

The elastic cushion does not compromise the force delivery of the boxing glove to the hitting target. Instead, it appears to allow for additional maneuvering time for alignment during the fist-target contact with higher impact.

Automatic learning mechanisms for flexible human locomotion

Movement flexibility and automaticity are necessary to successfully navigate different environments. When encountering difficult terrains such as a muddy trail, we can change how we step almost immediately so that we can continue walking. This flexibility comes at a cost since we initially must pay deliberate attention to how we are moving. Gradually, after a few minutes on the trail, stepping becomes automatic so that we do not need to think about our movements. Canonical theory indicates that different adaptive motor learning mechanisms confer these essential properties to movement: explicit control confers rapid flexibility, while forward model recalibration confers automaticity. Here we uncover a distinct mechanism of treadmill walking adaptation - an automatic stimulus-response mapping - that confers both properties to movement. The mechanism is flexible as it learns stepping patterns that can be rapidly changed to suit a range of treadmill configurations. It is also automatic as it can operate without deliberate control or explicit awareness by the participants. Our findings reveal a tandem architecture of forward model recalibration and automatic stimulus-response mapping mechanisms for walking, reconciling different findings of motor adaptation and perceptual realignment.

Understanding mechanisms of generalization following locomotor adaptation

Our nervous system has the remarkable ability to adapt our gait to accommodate changes in our body or surroundings. However, our adapted walking patterns often generalize only partially (or not at all) between different contexts. Here, we sought to understand how the nervous system generalizes adapted gait patterns from one context to another. Through a series of split-belt treadmill walking experiments, we evaluated different mechanistic hypotheses to explain the partial generalization of adapted gait patterns from split-belt treadmill to overground walking. In support of the credit assignment hypothesis, our experiments revealed the central finding that adaptation involves recalibration of two distinct forward models. Recalibration of the first model generalizes to overground walking, suggesting that the model represents the general movement dynamics of our body. On the other hand, recalibration of the second model does not generalize to overground walking, suggesting the model represents dynamics specific to treadmill walking. These findings reveal that there is a predefined portion of forward model recalibration that generalizes across context, leading to overall partial generalization of walking adaptation.

Perceptual error based on Bayesian cue combination drives implicit motor adaptation

The sensorimotor system can recalibrate itself without our conscious awareness, a type of procedural learning whose computational mechanism remains undefined. Recent findings on implicit motor adaptation, such as over-learning from small perturbations and fast saturation for increasing perturbation size, challenge existing theories based on sensory errors. We argue that perceptual error, arising from the optimal combination of movement-related cues, is the primary driver of implicit adaptation. Central to our theory is the increasing sensory uncertainty of visual cues with increasing perturbations, which was validated through perceptual psychophysics (Experiment 1). Our theory predicts the learning dynamics of implicit adaptation across a spectrum of perturbation sizes on a trial-by-trial basis (Experiment 2). It explains proprioception changes and their relation to visual perturbation (Experiment 3). By modulating visual uncertainty in perturbation, we induced unique adaptation responses in line with our model predictions (Experiment 4). Overall, our perceptual error framework outperforms existing models based on sensory errors, suggesting that perceptual error in locating one's effector, supported by Bayesian cue integration, underpins the sensorimotor system's implicit adaptation.

Different sensory information is used for state estimation when stationary or moving

The accurate estimation of limb state is necessary for movement planning and execution. While state estimation requires both feedforward and feedback information, we focus here on the latter. Prior literature has shown that integrating visual and proprioceptive feedback improves estimates of static limb position. However, differences in visual and proprioceptive feedback delays suggest that multisensory integration could be disadvantageous when the limb is moving. We formalized this hypothesis by modeling feedback-based state estimation using the longstanding maximum likelihood estimation model of multisensory integration, which we updated to account for sensory delays. Our model predicted that the benefit of multisensory integration was largely lost when the limb was passively moving. We tested this hypothesis in a series of experiments in human subjects that compared the degree of interference created by discrepant visual or proprioceptive feedback when estimating limb position either statically at the end of the movement or dynamically at movement midpoint. In the static case, we observed significant interference: discrepant feedback in one modality systematically biased sensory estimates based on the other modality. However, no interference was seen in the dynamic case: participants could ignore sensory feedback from one modality and accurately reproduce the motion indicated by the other modality. Together, these findings suggest that the sensory feedback used to compute a state estimate differs depending on whether the limb is stationary or moving. While the former may tend toward multimodal integration, the latter is more likely to be based on feedback from a single sensory modality.

Minimal impact of proprioceptive loss on implicit sensorimotor adaptation and perceived movement outcome

Implicit sensorimotor adaptation keeps our movements well-calibrated amid changes in the body and environment. We have recently postulated that implicit adaptation is driven by a perceptual error: the difference between the desired and perceived movement outcome. According to this perceptual re-alignment model, implicit adaptation ceases when the perceived movement outcome - a multimodal percept determined by a prior belief conveying the intended action, the motor command, and feedback from proprioception and vision - is aligned with the desired movement outcome. Here, we examined the role of proprioception in implicit motor adaptation and perceived movement outcome by examining individuals who lack proprioception. We used a modified visuomotor rotation task designed to isolate implicit adaptation and probe perceived outcome throughout the experiment. Surprisingly, implicit adaptation and perceived outcome were minimally impacted by deafferentation, posing a challenge to the perceptual re-alignment model of implicit adaptation.

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.

Subsensory stochastic electrical stimulation targeting muscle afferents alters gait control during locomotor adaptations to haptic perturbations

Subsensory noise stimulation targeting sensory receptors has been shown to improve balance control in healthy and impaired individuals. However, the potential for application of this technique in other contexts is still unknown. Gait control and adaptation rely heavily on the input from proprioceptive organs in the muscles and joints. Here we investigated the use of subsensory noise stimulation as a means to influence motor control by altering proprioception during locomotor adaptations to forces delivered by a robot. The forces increase step length unilaterally and trigger an adaptive response that restores the original symmetry. Healthy participants performed two adaptation experiments, one with stimulation applied to the hamstring muscles and one without. We found that participants adapted faster but to a lesser extent when undergoing stimulation. We argue that this behavior is because of the dual effect that the stimulation has on the afferents encoding position and velocity in the muscle spindles.

Robotically quantifying finger and ankle proprioception: Role of range, speed, anticipatory errors, and learning

Proprioception plays a key role in motor control and stroke recovery. Robotic devices are increasingly being used to improve proprioceptive assessments, but there is a lack of knowledge about how programmable factors such as testing range, speed, and prior exposure affect tests. From a physiological standpoint, such factors may regulate the sensitivity of limb proprioceptors, thereby influencing assessment results when not controlled for. To determine the relative influence of such factors, we studied the Crisscross proprioceptive assessment, a recently developed robotic assessment that requires participants to indicate when two joints pass by each other as they are moved passively by the robot. We implemented Crisscross with novel robots for the fingers and ankles and tested young unimpaired participants in single sessions (N = 16) and longitudinally (N = 5, across 15-30 sessions over 3-10 weeks). In single-session testing, we found that proprioceptive acuity was better for the fingers than the ankle (p < 0.01). For both limbs, acuity improved near the ends of the range of motion, which may be due to greater involvement of load and joint receptors. Acuity was poorer for slower movements due to greater anticipatory errors. These results show how the range and speed selected for a proprioceptive test affect proprioceptive acuity and highlight the heightened role of anticipatory errors at slow speeds. Improvements in proprioceptive acuity were not detectable in a single session, but acuity improved across multiple testing sessions (p < 0.01). This result shows that multiple prior exposure over at least several days can affect acuity.Clinical Relevance- Proprioceptive assessments should account for range and speed, which could be enabled by leveraging robotics technology. Proprioceptive acuity can be improved through repeated testing, an observation that is relevant to proprioceptive rehabilitation as well.

Retention of visuo-proprioceptive recalibration in estimating hand position

The brain estimates hand position using visual and proprioceptive cues, which are combined to give an integrated multisensory estimate. Spatial mismatches between cues elicit recalibration, a compensatory process where each unimodal estimate is shifted closer to the other. It is unclear how well visuo-proprioceptive recalibration is retained after mismatch exposure. Here we asked whether direct vision and/or active movement of the hand can undo visuo-proprioceptive recalibration, and whether recalibration is still evident 24 h later. 75 participants performed two blocks of visual, proprioceptive, and combination trials, with no feedback or direct vision of the hand. In Block 1, a 70 mm visuo-proprioceptive mismatch was gradually imposed, and recalibration assessed. Block 2 tested retention. Between blocks, Groups 1-4 rested or made active movements with their directly visible or unseen hand for several minutes. Group 5 had a 24-h gap between blocks. All five groups recalibrated both vision and proprioception in Block 1, and Groups 1-4 retained most of this recalibration in Block 2. Interestingly, Group 5 showed an offline increase in proprioceptive recalibration, but retained little visual recalibration. Our results suggested that visuo-proprioceptive recalibration is robustly retained in the short-term. In the longer term, contextual factors may affect retention.

Conscious awareness of a visuo-proprioceptive mismatch: Effect on cross-sensory recalibration

The brain estimates hand position using vision and position sense (proprioception). The relationship between visual and proprioceptive estimates is somewhat flexible: visual information about the index finger can be spatially displaced from proprioceptive information, resulting in cross-sensory recalibration of the visual and proprioceptive unimodal position estimates. According to the causal inference framework, recalibration occurs when the unimodal estimates are attributed to a common cause and integrated. If separate causes are perceived, then recalibration should be reduced. Here we assessed visuo-proprioceptive recalibration in response to a gradual visuo-proprioceptive mismatch at the left index fingertip. Experiment 1 asked how frequently a 70 mm mismatch is consciously perceived compared to when no mismatch is present, and whether awareness is linked to reduced visuo-proprioceptive recalibration, consistent with causal inference predictions. However, conscious offset awareness occurred rarely. Experiment 2 tested a larger displacement, 140 mm, and asked participants about their perception more frequently, including at 70 mm. Experiment 3 confirmed that participants were unbiased at estimating distances in the 2D virtual reality display. Results suggest that conscious awareness of the mismatch was indeed linked to reduced cross-sensory recalibration as predicted by the causal inference framework, but this was clear only at higher mismatch magnitudes (70–140 mm). At smaller offsets (up to 70 mm), conscious perception of an offset may not override unconscious belief in a common cause, perhaps because the perceived offset magnitude is in range of participants’ natural sensory biases. These findings highlight the interaction of conscious awareness with multisensory processes in hand perception.

Understanding implicit sensorimotor adaptation as a process of proprioceptive re-alignment

Multiple learning processes contribute to successful goal-directed actions in the face of changing physiological states, biomechanical constraints, and environmental contexts. Amongst these processes, implicit sensorimotor adaptation is of primary importance, ensuring that movements remain well-calibrated and accurate. A large body of work on reaching movements has emphasized how adaptation centers on an iterative process designed to minimize visual errors. The role of proprioception has been largely neglected, thought to play a passive role in which proprioception is affected by the visual error but does not directly contribute to adaptation. Here, we present an alternative to this visuo-centric framework, outlining a model in which implicit adaptation acts to minimize a proprioceptive error, the distance between the perceived hand position and its intended goal. This proprioceptive re-alignment model (PReMo) is consistent with many phenomena that have previously been interpreted in terms of learning from visual errors, and offers a parsimonious account of numerous unexplained phenomena. Cognizant that the evidence for PReMo rests on correlational studies, we highlight core predictions to be tested in future experiments, as well as note potential challenges for a proprioceptive-based perspective on implicit adaptation.

What makes somatosensory short-term memory maintenance effective? An EEG study comparing contralateral delay activity between sighted participants and participants who are blind

Somatosensory short-term memory is essential for object recognition, sensorimotor learning, and, especially, Braille reading for people who are blind. This study examined how visual sensory deprivation and a compensatory focus on somatosensory information influences memory processes in this domain. We measured slow cortical negativity developing during short-term tactile memory maintenance (tactile contralateral delay activity, tCDA) in frontal and somatosensory areas while a sample of 24 sighted participants and 22 participants who are blind completed a tactile change-detection task where varying loads of Braille pin patterns served as stimuli. Auditory cues, appearing at varying latencies between sample arrays, could be used to reduce memory demands during maintenance. Participants who are blind (trained Braille readers) outperformed sighted participants behaviorally. In addition, while task-related frontal activation featured in both groups, participants who are blind uniquely showed higher tCDA amplitudes specifically over somatosensory areas. The site specificity of this component's functional relevance in short-term memory maintenance was further supported by somatosensory tCDA amplitudes first correlating across the whole sample with behavioral performance, and secondly showing sensitivity to varying memory load. The results substantiate sensory recruitment models and provide new insights into the effects of visual sensory deprivation on tactile processing. Between-group differences in the interplay between frontal and somatosensory areas during somatosensory maintenance also suggest that efficient maintenance of complex tactile stimuli in short-term memory is primarily facilitated by lateralized activity in somatosensory cortex.

Mechanisms of Human Motor Learning Do Not Function Independently

Human motor learning is governed by a suite of interacting mechanisms each one of which modifies behavior in distinct ways and rely on different neural circuits. In recent years, much attention has been given to one type of motor learning, called motor adaptation. Here, the field has generally focused on the interactions of three mechanisms: sensory prediction error SPE-driven, explicit (strategy-based), and reinforcement learning. Studies of these mechanisms have largely treated them as modular, aiming to model how the outputs of each are combined in the production of overt behavior. However, when examined closely the results of some studies also suggest the existence of additional interactions between the sub-components of each learning mechanism. In this perspective, we propose that these sub-component interactions represent a critical means through which different motor learning mechanisms are combined to produce movement; understanding such interactions is critical to advancing our knowledge of how humans learn new behaviors. We review current literature studying interactions between SPE-driven, explicit, and reinforcement mechanisms of motor learning. We then present evidence of sub-component interactions between SPE-driven and reinforcement learning as well as between SPE-driven and explicit learning from studies of people with cerebellar degeneration. Finally, we discuss the implications of interactions between learning mechanism sub-components for future research in human motor learning.

Precision control for a flexible body representation

Adaptive body representation requires the continuous integration of multisensory inputs within a flexible 'body model' in the brain. The present review evaluates the idea that this flexibility is augmented by the contextual modulation of sensory processing 'top-down'; which can be described as precision control within predictive coding formulations of Bayesian inference. Specifically, I focus on the proposal that an attenuation of proprioception may facilitate the integration of conflicting visual and proprioceptive bodily cues. Firstly, I review empirical work suggesting that the processing of visual vs proprioceptive body position information can be contextualised 'top-down'; for instance, by adopting specific attentional task sets. Building up on this, I review research showing a similar contextualisation of visual vs proprioceptive information processing in the rubber hand illusion and in visuomotor adaptation. Together, the reviewed literature suggests that proprioception, despite its indisputable importance for body perception and action control, can be attenuated top-down (through precision control) to facilitate the contextual adaptation of the brain's body model to novel visual feedback.

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.

Continuous Head Motion is a Greater Motor Control Challenge than Transient Head Motion in Patients with Loss of Vestibular Function

Background. The vestibular system is vital for gaze stability via the vestibulo-ocular reflex, which generates compensatory eye motion in the direction opposite to head motion. Consequently, individuals with peripheral vestibular loss demonstrate impaired gaze stability that reduces functional capacity and quality of life. To facilitate patients' compensatory strategies, two classes of gaze stabilization exercises are often prescribed: (i) transient (eg, ballistic) and (ii) continuous. However, the relative benefits of these two classes of exercises are not well understood. Objective. To quantify head motion kinematics in patients with vestibular loss while they performed both classes of exercises. Methods. Using inertial measurement units, head movements of 18 vestibular schwannoma patients were measured before and after surgical deafferentation and compared with age-matched controls. Results. We found that the head movement during both classes of exercises paralleled those of natural head movement recorded during daily activities. However, head movement patterns were more informative for continuous than transient exercises in distinguishing patients from healthy controls. Specifically, we observed coupling between kinematic measures in control subjects that was absent in patients for continuous but not transient head motion exercises. In addition, kinematic measures (eg, cycle duration) were predictive of standard clinical measures for continuous but not transient head motion exercises. Conclusions. Our data suggest that performing continuous head motion is a greater motor control challenge than transient head motion in patients with less reliable vestibular feedback during the sub-acute stage of recovery, which may also prove to be a reliable measure of progression in vestibular rehabilitation protocols.

Individual differences in proprioception predict the extent of implicit sensorimotor adaptation

Recent studies have revealed an upper bound in motor adaptation, beyond which other learning systems may be recruited. The factors determining this upper bound are poorly understood. The multisensory integration hypothesis states that this limit arises from opposing responses to visual and proprioceptive feedback. As individuals adapt to a visual perturbation, they experience an increasing proprioceptive error in the opposite direction, and the upper bound is the point where these two error signals reach an equilibrium. Assuming that visual and proprioceptive feedback are weighted according to their variability, there should be a correlation between proprioceptive variability and the limits of adaptation. Alternatively, the proprioceptive realignment hypothesis states that the upper bound arises when the (visually biased) sensed hand position realigns with the expected sensed position (target). When a visuo-proprioceptive discrepancy is introduced, the sensed hand position is biased toward the visual cursor, and the adaptive system counteracts this discrepancy by driving the hand away from the target. This hypothesis predicts a correlation between the size of the proprioceptive shift and the upper bound of adaptation. We tested these two hypotheses by considering natural variation in proprioception and motor adaptation across individuals. We observed a modest, yet reliable correlation between the upper bound of adaptation with both proprioceptive measures (variability and shift). Although the results do not clearly favor one hypothesis over the other, they underscore the critical role of proprioception in sensorimotor adaptation.NEW & NOTEWORTHY Although the sensorimotor system uses sensory feedback to remain calibrated, this learning process is constrained, limited by the maximum degree of plasticity. The factors determining this limit remain elusive. Guided by two hypotheses, we show that individual differences in the upper bound of adaptation in response to a visual perturbation can be predicted by the bias and variability in proprioception. These results underscore the critical, but often neglected role of proprioception in human motor learning.