Time Course of Tactile Gating in a Reach-to-Grasp and Lift Task

Descending motor command to prime mover of dependent finger induces tactile gating in target and distant non-target finger

This study examined whether tactile gating induced by the descending motor command to one finger spreads out to the other fingers to which the command is not delivered and whether this gating is dependent on the target finger to which the command is delivered. The change in perceptual threshold to the digital nerve stimulation of one finger induced by tonic contraction of the first dorsal interosseous or abductor digiti minimi muscle was examined. The perceptual threshold to the digital nerve stimulation of the thumb or little finger was increased by tonic contraction of the abductor digiti minimi muscle. This finding indicates that the descending motor command to the prime mover of the little finger abduction induces tactile gating not only in the finger to which the command is delivered but also in the other finger to which the command is not delivered. Tonic contraction of the first dorsal interosseous muscle did not change the perceptual threshold to the digital nerve stimulation in any finger. This finding means that tactile gating occurs particularly when the descending motor command is delivered to the dependent finger. Spreading out of tactile gating of one finger, to which the descending motor command is not delivered, is likely mediated by surround inhibition.

How visuomotor predictability and task demands affect tactile sensitivity on a moving limb during object interaction in a virtual environment

Tactile sensitivity is decreased on a moving limb compared to the same static limb. This tactile suppression likely reflects an interplay between sensorimotor predictions and sensory feedback. Here, we examined how visuomotor predictability influences tactile suppression. Participants were instructed to hit an approaching virtual object, with the object either never rotating, or always rotating, or rotating unpredictably, prompting related movement adjustments. We probed tactile suppression by delivering a vibrotactile stimulus of varying intensities to the moving hand briefly after the object's rotation and asked participants to indicate if they had felt a vibration. We hypothesized that Unpredictable Rotations would require upweighting of somatosensory feedback from the hand and therefore decrease suppression. Instead, we found stronger suppression with unpredictable than Predictable Rotations. This finding persisted even when visual input from the moving hand was removed and participants had to rely solely on somatosensory feedback of their hand. Importantly, we found a correlation between task demand and tactile suppression in both experiments, indicating that task load can amplify tactile suppression, possibly by downweighting task-irrelevant somatosensory feedback signals to allow for successful task performance when visuomotor task demands are high.

Sensorimotor memories influence movement kinematics but not associated tactile processing

When interacting with objects, we often rely on visual information. However, vision is not always the most reliable sense for determining relevant object properties. For example, when the mass distribution of an object cannot be inferred visually, humans may rely on predictions about the object's dynamics. Such predictions may not only influence motor behavior but also associated processing of movement-related afferent information, leading to reduced tactile sensitivity during movement. We examined whether predictions based on sensorimotor memories influence grasping kinematics and associated tactile processing. Participants lifted an object of unknown mass distribution and reported whether they detected a tactile stimulus on their grasping hand during the lift. In Experiment 1, the mass distribution could change from trial to trial, whereas in Experiment 2, we intermingled longer with shorter parts of constant and variable mass distributions, while also providing implicit or explicit information about the trial structure. In both experiments, participants grasped the object by predictively choosing contact points that would compensate the mass distribution experienced in the previous trial. Tactile suppression during movement, however, was invariant across conditions. These results suggest that predictions based on sensorimotor memories can influence movement kinematics but not associated tactile perception.

Tactile facilitation during actual and mere expectation of object reception

During reaching and grasping movements tactile processing is typically suppressed. However, during a reception or catching task, the object can still be acquired but without suppressive processes related to movement execution. Rather, tactile information may be facilitated as the object approaches in anticipation of object contact and the utilization of tactile feedback. Therefore, the current study investigated tactile processing during a reception task. Participants sat with their upper limb still as an object travelled to and contacted their fingers. At different points along the object's trajectory and prior to contact, participants were asked to detect tactile stimuli delivered to their index finger. To understand if the expectation of object contact contributed to any modulation in tactile processing, the object stopped prematurely on 20% of trials. Compared to a pre-object movement baseline, relative perceptual thresholds were decreased throughout the object's trajectory, and even when the object stopped prematurely. Further, there was no evidence for modulation when the stimulus was presented shortly before object contact. The former results suggest that tactile processing is facilitated as an object approaches an individual's hand. As well, we purport that the expectation of tactile feedback drives this modulation. Finally, the latter results suggest that peripheral masking may have reduced/abolished any facilitation.

Facilitation of tactile processing during action observation of goal-directed reach and grasp movements

Our perception of sensory events can be altered by action, but less is known about how our perception can be altered by action observation. For example, our ability to detect tactile stimuli is reduced when our limb is moving, and task-relevance and movement speed can alter such tactile detectability. During action observation, however, the relationship between tactile processing and such modulating factors is not known. Thus, the current study sought to explore tactile processing at a task-relevant location during the observation of reaching and grasping movements performed at different speeds. Specifically, participants observed videos of an anonymous model performing movements at a slow (i.e., peak velocity [PV]: 155 mm/second), medium (i.e., PV: 547 mm/s), or fast speed (i.e., PV: 955 mm/s). To assess tactile processing, weak electrical stimuli of different amplitudes were presented to participants' right thumbs when the observed model was at their starting position and prior to any movement, or when the observed model's limb reached its PV. When observing slow movements, normalized perceptual thresholds were significantly lower/ better than for the pre-movement stimulation time. These data suggest that the movement speed can modulate tactile processing, even when observing a movement. Further, these findings provide seminal evidence for tactile facilitation at a task-relevant location during the observation of slow reaching and grasping movements (i.e., speeds associated with tactile exploration).

Tactile motor attention induces sensory attenuation for sounds

Sensory events appear reduced in intensity when we actively produce them. Here, we investigated sensory attenuation in a virtual reality setup that allowed us to manipulate the time of tactile feedback when pressing a virtual button. We asked whether tactile motor attention might shift to the tactile location that makes contact with the button. In experiment one, we found that a tactile impulse was perceived as more intense when button pressing. In a second experiment, participants pushed a button and estimated the intensity of sounds. We found sensory attenuation for sounds only when tactile feedback was provided at the time the movement goal was reached. These data indicate that attentional prioritization for the tactile modality during a goal-directed hand movement might lead to a transient reduction in sensitivity in other modalities, resulting in sensory attenuation for sounds.

Tactile suppression stems from specific sensorimotor predictions

Tactile sensations on a moving hand are perceived weaker than when presented on the same but stationary hand. There is an ongoing debate about whether this weaker perception is based on sensorimotor predictions or is due to a blanket reduction in sensitivity. Here, we show greater suppression of sensations matching predicted sensory feedback. This reinforces the idea of precise estimations of future body sensory states suppressing the predicted sensory feedback. Our results shine light on the mechanisms of human sensorimotor control and are relevant for understanding clinical phenomena related to predictive processes.

The ability to sample sensory information with our hands is crucial for smooth and efficient interactions with the world. Despite this important role of touch, tactile sensations on a moving hand are perceived weaker than when presented on the same but stationary hand. This phenomenon of tactile suppression has been explained by predictive mechanisms, such as internal forward models, that estimate future sensory states of the body on the basis of the motor command and suppress the associated predicted sensory feedback. The origins of tactile suppression have sparked a lot of debate, with contemporary accounts claiming that suppression is independent of sensorimotor predictions and is instead due to an unspecific mechanism. Here, we target this debate and provide evidence for specific tactile suppression due to precise sensorimotor predictions. Participants stroked with their finger over textured objects that caused predictable vibrotactile feedback signals on that finger. Shortly before touching the texture, we probed tactile suppression by applying external vibrotactile probes on the moving finger that either matched or mismatched the frequency generated by the stroking movement along the texture. We found stronger suppression of the probes that matched the predicted sensory feedback. These results show that tactile suppression is specifically tuned to the predicted sensory states of a movement.

Predictive attenuation of touch and tactile gating are distinct perceptual phenomena

In recent decades, research on somatosensory perception has led to two important observations. First, self-generated touches that are predicted by voluntary movements become attenuated compared with externally generated touches of the same intensity (attenuation). Second, externally generated touches feel weaker and are more difficult to detect during movement than at rest (gating). At present, researchers often consider gating and attenuation the same suppression process; however, this assumption is unwarranted because, despite more than 40 years of research, no study has combined them in a single paradigm. We quantified how people perceive self-generated and externally generated touches during movement and rest. We show that whereas voluntary movement gates the precision of both self-generated and externally generated touch, the amplitude of self-generated touch is robustly attenuated compared with externally generated touch. Furthermore, attenuation and gating do not interact and are not correlated, and we conclude that they represent distinct perceptual phenomena.

•

We tested the perception of self-generated and external touch during movement and rest

•

The intensity of self-generated touch is reduced during movement and rest (attenuation)

•

The precision of self-generated and external touch is reduced during movement (gating)

•

Attenuation and gating neither interact nor correlate, and are distinct phenomena

Linking Signal Relevancy and Intensity in Predictive Tactile Suppression

Predictable somatosensory feedback leads to a reduction in tactile sensitivity. This phenomenon, called tactile suppression, relies on a mechanism that uses an efference copy of motor commands to help select relevant aspects of incoming sensory signals. We investigated whether tactile suppression is modulated by (a) the task-relevancy of the predicted consequences of movement and (b) the intensity of related somatosensory feedback signals. Participants reached to a target region in the air in front of a screen; visual or tactile feedback indicated the reach was successful. Furthermore, tactile feedback intensity (strong vs. weak) varied across two groups of participants. We measured tactile suppression by comparing detection thresholds for a probing vibration applied to the finger either early or late during reach and at rest. As expected, we found an overall decrease in late-reach suppression, as no touch was involved at the end of the reach. We observed an increase in the degree of tactile suppression when strong tactile feedback was given at the end of the reach, compared to when weak tactile feedback or visual feedback was given. Our results suggest that the extent of tactile suppression can be adapted to different demands of somatosensory processing. Downregulation of this mechanism is invoked only when the consequences of missing a weak movement sequence are severe for the task. The decisive factor for the presence of tactile suppression seems not to be the predicted action effect as such, but the need to detect and process anticipated feedback signals occurring during movement.

Reach-relevant somatosensory signals modulate activity in the tactile suppression network

Somatosensory signals on a moving limb are typically suppressed. This results mainly from a predictive mechanism that generates an efference copy, and attenuates the predicted sensory consequences of that movement. Sensory feedback is, however, important for movement control. Behavioral studies show that the strength of suppression on a moving limb increases during somatosensory reaching, when reach-relevant somatosensory signals from the target limb can be additionally used to plan and guide the movement, leading to increased reliability of sensorimotor predictions. It is still unknown how this suppression is neurally implemented. In this fMRI study, participants reached to a somatosensory (static finger) or an external target (touch-screen) without vision. To probe suppression, participants detected brief vibrotactile stimuli on their moving finger shortly before reach onset. As expected, sensitivity to probes was reduced during reaching compared to baseline (resting), and this suppression was stronger during somatosensory than external reaching. BOLD activation associated with suppression was also modulated by the reach target: relative to baseline, processing of probes during somatosensory reaching led to distinct BOLD deactivations in somatosensory regions (postcentral gyrus, supramarginal gyrus-SMG) whereas probes during external reaching led to deactivations in the cerebellum. In line with the behavioral results, we also found additional deactivations during somatosensory relative to external reaching in the supplementary motor area, a region linked with sensorimotor prediction. Somatosensory reaching was also linked with increased functional connectivity between the left SMG and the right parietal operculum along with the right anterior insula. We show that somatosensory processing on a moving limb is reduced when additional reach-relevant feedback signals from the target limb contribute to the movement, by down-regulating activation in regions associated with predictive and feedback processing.

Dynamic temporal modulation of somatosensory processing during reaching

Sensorimotor control of human action integrates feedforward policies that predict future body states with online sensory feedback. These predictions lead to a suppression of the associated feedback signals. Here, we examine whether somatosensory processing throughout a goal-directed movement is constantly suppressed or dynamically tuned so that online feedback processing is enhanced at critical moments of the movement. Participants reached towards their other hand in the absence of visual input and detected a probing tactile stimulus on their moving or static hand. Somatosensory processing on the moving hand was dynamically tuned over the time course of reaching, being hampered in early and late stages of the movement, but, interestingly, recovering around the time of maximal speed. This novel finding of temporal somatosensory tuning was further corroborated in a second experiment, in which larger movement amplitudes shifted the absolute time of maximal speed later in the movement. We further show that the release from suppression on the moving limb was temporally coupled with enhanced somatosensory processing on the target hand. We discuss these results in the context of optimal feedforward control and suggest that somatosensory processing is dynamically tuned during the time course of reaching by enhancing sensory processing at critical moments of the movement.

The influence of afferent input on somatosensory suppression during grasping

The processing of somatosensory information is hampered on a moving limb. This suppression has been widely attributed to sensorimotor predictions that suppress the associated feedback, though postdictive mechanisms are also involved. Here, we investigated the extent to which suppression on a limb is influenced by backward somatosensory signals, such as afferents associated with forces that this limb applies. Participants grasped and lifted objects of symmetric and asymmetric mass distributions using a precision grip. We probed somatosensory processing at the moment of the grasp by presenting a vibrotactile stimulus either on the thumb or index finger and asked participants to report if they felt this stimulus. Participants applied greater forces with the thumb and index finger for objects loaded to the thumb’s or index finger’s endpoint, respectively. However, suppression was not influenced by the different applied forces. Suppression on the digits remained constant both when grasping heavier objects, and thus applying even greater forces, and when probing suppression on the skin over the muscle that controlled force application. These results support the idea that somatosensory suppression is predictive in nature while backward masking may only play a minor role in somatosensory processing on the moving hand, at least in this context.

Now You Feel It, Now You Don't: The Effect of Movement, Cue Complexity, and Body Location on Tactile Change Detection

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects that movement, cue complexity, and the location of tactile displays on the body have on tactile change detection.

BACKGROUND

Tactile displays have been demonstrated as a means to address data overload by offloading the visual and auditory modalities. However, change blindness-the failure to detect changes in a stimulus when changes coincide with another event or disruption in stimulus continuity-has been demonstrated to affect the tactile modality and may be exacerbated during movement. The complexity of tactile cues and locations of tactile displays on the body may also affect the detection of changes in tactile patterns. Limitations to tactile perception need to be examined.

METHOD

Twenty-four participants performed a tactile change detection task while sitting, standing, and walking. Tactile cues varied in complexity and included low, medium, and high complexity cues presented to the arm or back.

RESULTS

Movement adversely affects tactile change detection as hit rates were the highest while sitting, followed by standing and walking. Cue complexity affected tactile change detection: Low complexity cues resulted in higher detection rates compared with medium and high complexity cues. The arms exhibited better change detection performance than the back.

CONCLUSION

The design of tactile displays should consider the effect of movement. Cue complexity should be minimized and decisions about the location of a tactile display should take into account body movements to support tactile perception.

APPLICATION

The findings can provide design guidelines to inform tactile display design for data-rich, complex domains.

Vision facilitates tactile perception when grasping an object

Tactile sensitivity measured on the hand is significantly decreased for a moving (MH), as opposed to a resting hand (RH). This process (i.e., tactile suppression) is affected by the availability of visual information during goal-directed action. However, the timing of the contribution of visual information is currently unclear for reach-to-grasp movements, especially in the period before the digits land on the object to grasp it. Here participants reached for, grasped, and lifted an object placed in front of them in conditions of full/limited vision. Tactile perception was assessed by measures of signal detection theory (d' & c'). Electro-cutaneous stimulation could be delivered/not at the MH/RH, either during movement preparation, execution, before grasping, or while lifting the object. Results confirm tactile gating at the MH. This result is accompanied by a significant conservative criterion shift at the MH for the latter movement stages. Importantly, visual information enhances MH sensitivity just before grasping the object, but also improves RH sensitivity, during object lift. These findings reveal that tactile suppression is shaped by visual inputs at critical action stages. Further, they indicate that such a time-dependent modulation from vision to touch extends beyond the MH, suggesting a dynamic monitoring of the grasp space.

The role of visual processing on tactile suppression

It has been suggested that tactile signals are suppressed on a moving limb to free capacities for processing other relevant sensory signals. In line with this notion, we recently showed that tactile suppression is indeed stronger in the presence of reach-relevant somatosensory signals. Here we examined whether this effect also generalizes to the processing of additional visual signals during reaching. Brief vibrotactile stimuli were presented on the participants’ right index finger either during right-hand reaching to a previously illuminated target LED, or during rest. Participants had to indicate whether they detected the vibrotactile stimulus or not. The target LED remained off (tactile), or was briefly illuminated (tactile & vis) during reaching, providing additional reach-relevant visual information about the target position. If tactile suppression frees capacities for reach-relevant visual information, suppression should be stronger in the tactile & vis compared to the tactile condition. In an additional visual-discrimination condition (tactile & visDis), the target LED flashed once or twice during reaching and participants had to also report the number of flashes. If tactile suppression occurs to free additional capacities for perception-relevant visual signals, tactile suppression should be even stronger in the tactile & visDis compared to the tactile & vis condition. We found that additional visual signals improved reach endpoint accuracy and precision. In all conditions, reaching led to tactile suppression as indicated by higher detection thresholds compared to rest, confirming previous findings. However, tactile suppression was comparable between conditions arguing against the hypothesis that it frees capacities for processing other relevant visual signals.

Spatial specificity of tactile enhancement during reaching

Tactile signals on a hand that serves as movement goal are enhanced during movement planning and execution. Here, we examined how spatially specific tactile enhancement is when humans reach to their own static hand. Participants discriminated two brief and simultaneously presented tactile stimuli: a comparison stimulus on the left thumb or little finger from a reference stimulus on the sternum. Tactile stimuli were presented either during right-hand reaching towards the left thumb or little finger or while holding both hands still (baseline). Consistent with our previous findings, stimuli on the left hand were perceived stronger during movement than baseline. However, tactile enhancement was not stronger when the stimuli were presented on the digit that served as reach target, thus the perception across the whole hand was uniformly enhanced. In experiment 2, we also presented stimuli on the upper arm in half of the trials to reduce the expectation of the stimulus location. Tactile stimuli on the target hand, but not on the upper arm, were generally enhanced, supporting the idea of a spatial gradient of tactile enhancement. Overall, our findings argue for low spatial specificity of tactile enhancement at movement-relevant body parts, here the target hand.

Reach-relevant somatosensory signals modulate tactile suppression

Tactile stimuli on moving limbs are typically attenuated during reach planning and execution. This phenomenon has been related to internal forward models that predict the sensory consequences of a movement. Tactile suppression is considered to occur due to a match between the actual and predicted sensory consequences of a movement, which might free capacities to process novel or task-relevant sensory signals. Here, we examined whether and how tactile suppression depends on the relevance of somatosensory information for reaching. Participants reached with their left or right index finger to the unseen index finger of their other hand (body target) or an unseen pad on a screen (external target). In the body target condition, somatosensory signals from the static hand were available for localizing the reach target. Vibrotactile stimuli were presented on the moving index finger before or during reaching or in a separate no-movement baseline block, and participants indicated whether they detected a stimulus. As expected, detection thresholds before or during reaching were higher compared with baseline. Tactile suppression was also stronger for reaches to body targets than external targets, as reflected by higher detection thresholds and lower precision of detectability. Moreover, detection thresholds were higher when reaching with the left than with the right hand. Our results suggest that tactile suppression is modulated by position signals from the target limb that are required to reach successfully to the own body. Moreover, limb dominance seems to affect tactile suppression, presumably due to disparate uncertainty of feedback signals from the moving limb.NEW & NOTEWORTHY Tactile suppression on a moving limb has been suggested to release computational resources for processing other relevant sensory events. In the current study, we show that tactile sensitivity on the moving limb decreases more when reaching to body targets than external targets. This indicates that tactile perception can be modulated by allocating processing capacities to movement-relevant somatosensory information at the target location. Our results contribute to understanding tactile processing and predictive mechanisms in the brain.