Why do movements drift in the dark? Passive versus active mechanisms of error accumulation

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.

Somatosensory target information is used for reaching but not for saccadic eye movements

A systematic investigation of contributions of different somatosensory modalities (proprioception, kinesthesia, tactile) for goal-directed movements is missing. Here we demonstrate that while eye movements are not affected by different types of somatosensory information, reach precision improves when two different types of information are available. Moreover, reach accuracy and gaze precision to unseen somatosensory targets improve when performing coordinated eye-hand movements, suggesting bidirectional contributions of efferent information in reach and eye movement control.

A generative learning model for saccade adaptation

Plasticity in the oculomotor system ensures that saccadic eye movements reliably meet their visual goals-to bring regions of interest into foveal, high-acuity vision. Here, we present a comprehensive description of sensorimotor learning in saccades. We induced continuous adaptation of saccade amplitudes using a double-step paradigm, in which participants saccade to a peripheral target stimulus, which then undergoes a surreptitious, intra-saccadic shift (ISS) as the eyes are in flight. In our experiments, the ISS followed a systematic variation, increasing or decreasing from one saccade to the next as a sinusoidal function of the trial number. Over a large range of frequencies, we confirm that adaptation gain shows (1) a periodic response, reflecting the frequency of the ISS with a delay of a number of trials, and (2) a simultaneous drift towards lower saccade gains. We then show that state-space-based linear time-invariant systems (LTIS) represent suitable generative models for this evolution of saccade gain over time. This state-equation algorithm computes the prediction of an internal (or hidden state-) variable by learning from recent feedback errors, and it can be compared to experimentally observed adaptation gain. The algorithm also includes a forgetting rate that quantifies per-trial leaks in the adaptation gain, as well as a systematic, non-error-based bias. Finally, we study how the parameters of the generative models depend on features of the ISS. Driven by a sinusoidal disturbance, the state-equation admits an exact analytical solution that expresses the parameters of the phenomenological description as functions of those of the generative model. Together with statistical model selection criteria, we use these correspondences to characterize and refine the structure of compatible state-equation models. We discuss the relation of these findings to established results and suggest that they may guide further design of experimental research across domains of sensorimotor adaptation.

Saccadic adaptation to a systematically varying disturbance

Saccadic adaptation maintains the correct mapping between eye movements and their targets, yet the dynamics of saccadic gain changes in the presence of systematically varying disturbances has not been extensively studied. Here we assessed changes in the gain of saccade amplitudes induced by continuous and periodic postsaccadic visual feedback. Observers made saccades following a sequence of target steps either along the horizontal meridian (Two-way adaptation) or with unconstrained saccade directions (Global adaptation). An intrasaccadic step-following a sinusoidal variation as a function of the trial number (with 3 different frequencies tested in separate blocks)-consistently displaced the target along its vector. The oculomotor system responded to the resulting feedback error by modifying saccade amplitudes in a periodic fashion with similar frequency of variation but lagging the disturbance by a few tens of trials. This periodic response was superimposed on a drift toward stronger hypometria with similar asymptotes and decay rates across stimulus conditions. The magnitude of the periodic response decreased with increasing frequency and was smaller and more delayed for Global than Two-way adaptation. These results suggest that-in addition to the well-characterized return-to-baseline response observed in protocols using constant visual feedback-the oculomotor system attempts to minimize the feedback error by integrating its variation across trials. This process resembles a convolution with an internal response function, whose structure would be determined by coefficients of the learning model. Our protocol reveals this fast learning process in single short experimental sessions, qualifying it for the study of sensorimotor learning in health and disease.

Kinesthetic information facilitates saccades towards proprioceptive-tactile targets

Saccades to somatosensory targets have longer latencies and are less accurate and precise than saccades to visual targets. Here we examined how different somatosensory information influences the planning and control of saccadic eye movements. Participants fixated a central cross and initiated a saccade as fast as possible in response to a tactile stimulus that was presented to either the index or the middle fingertip of their unseen left hand. In a static condition, the hand remained at a target location for the entire block of trials and the stimulus was presented at a fixed time after an auditory tone. Therefore, the target location was derived only from proprioceptive and tactile information. In a moving condition, the hand was first actively moved to the same target location and the stimulus was then presented immediately. Thus, in the moving condition additional kinesthetic information about the target location was available. We found shorter saccade latencies in the moving compared to the static condition, but no differences in accuracy or precision of saccadic endpoints. In a second experiment, we introduced variable delays after the auditory tone (static condition) or after the end of the hand movement (moving condition) in order to reduce the predictability of the moment of the stimulation and to allow more time to process the kinesthetic information. Again, we found shorter latencies in the moving compared to the static condition but no improvement in saccade accuracy or precision. In a third experiment, we showed that the shorter saccade latencies in the moving condition cannot be explained by the temporal proximity between the relevant event (auditory tone or end of hand movement) and the moment of the stimulation. Our findings suggest that kinesthetic information facilitates planning, but not control, of saccadic eye movements to proprioceptive-tactile targets.