Does visual experience influence arm proprioception and its lateralization? Evidence from passive matching performance in congenitally-blind and sighted adults

In humans, body segments' position and movement can be estimated from multiple senses such as vision and proprioception. It has been suggested that vision and proprioception can influence each other and that upper-limb proprioception is asymmetrical, with proprioception of the non-dominant arm being more accurate and/or precise than proprioception of the dominant arm. However, the mechanisms underlying the lateralization of proprioceptive perception are not yet understood. Here we tested the hypothesis that early visual experience influences the lateralization of arm proprioceptive perception by comparing 8 congenitally-blind and 8 matched, sighted right-handed adults. Their proprioceptive perception was assessed at the elbow and wrist joints of both arms using an ipsilateral passive matching task. Results support and extend the view that proprioceptive precision is better at the non-dominant arm for blindfolded sighted individuals. While this finding was rather systematic across sighted individuals, proprioceptive precision of congenitally-blind individuals was not lateralized as systematically, suggesting that lack of visual experience during ontogenesis influences the lateralization of arm proprioception.

Disrupting somatosensory processing impairs motor execution but not motor imagery

While motor imagery (MI) is thought to be 'functionally equivalent' with motor execution (ME), the equivalence of feedforward and feedback mechanisms between the two modalities is unexplored. Here, we tested the equivalence of these mechanisms between MI and ME via two experiments designed to probe the role of somatosensory processing (Exp 1), and cognitive processing (Exp 2). All participants were engaged in a previously established force-matching task adapted for MI. A reference force was applied (on scale of 1-10, with higher numbers indicative of greater force) to one index finger while participants matched the force with their opposite index finger via ME or MI (control conditions). Participants then rated the force on the same scale of 1-10. Exp 1: Participants (N = 27) performed the task with tactile stimulation (ME+TAC, MI+TAC) in addition to control conditions. Exp 2: Participants (N = 26) performed the task in dual-task conditions (ME+COG, MI+COG) in addition to control conditions. Results indicate that (Exp 1) tactile stimulation impaired performance in ME but not MI. Dual-task conditions (Exp 2) were not shown to impair performance in either practice modality. Findings suggest that while somatosensory processing is critical for ME, it is not for MI. Overall we indicate a functional equivalence between feedforward/back mechanisms in MI and ME may not exist.

Auditory and somatosensory feedback mechanisms of laryngeal and articulatory speech motor control

PURPOSE

Speech production is a complex motor task involving multiple subsystems. The relationships between these subsystems need to be comprehensively investigated to understand the underlying mechanisms of speech production. The goal of this paper is to examine the differential contributions of 1) auditory and somatosensory feedback control mechanisms, and 2) laryngeal and articulatory speech production subsystems on speech motor control at an individual speaker level using altered auditory and somatosensory feedback paradigms.

METHODS

Twenty young adults completed speaking tasks in which sudden and unpredictable auditory and physical perturbations were applied to the laryngeal and articulatory speech production subsystems. Auditory perturbations were applied to laryngeal or articulatory acoustic features of speech. Physical perturbations were applied to the larynx and the jaw. Pearson-product moment correlation coefficients were calculated between 1) auditory and somatosensory reflexive responses to investigate relationships between auditory and somatosensory feedback control mechanisms, and 2) laryngeal and articulatory reflexive responses as well as acuity measures to investigate the relationship between auditory-motor features of laryngeal and articulatory subsystems.

RESULTS

No statistically significant correlations were found concerning the relationships between auditory and somatosensory feedback. No statistically significant correlations were found between auditory-motor features in the laryngeal and articulatory control subsystems.

CONCLUSION

Results suggest that the laryngeal and articulatory speech production subsystems operate with differential auditory and somatosensory feedback control mechanisms. The outcomes suggest that current models of speech motor control should consider decoupling laryngeal and articulatory domains to better model speech motor control processes.

Stoney vs. Histed: Quantifying the spatial effects of intracortical microstimulation

BACKGROUND

Intracortical microstimulation (ICMS) is used to map neural circuits and restore lost sensory modalities such as vision, hearing, and somatosensation. The spatial effects of ICMS remain controversial: Stoney and colleagues proposed that the volume of somatic activation increased with stimulation intensity, while Histed et al., suggested activation density, but not somatic activation volume, increases with stimulation intensity.

OBJECTIVE

We used computational modeling to quantify the spatial effects of ICMS intensity and unify the apparently paradoxical findings of Histed and Stoney.

METHODS

We implemented a biophysically-based computational model of a cortical column comprising neurons with realistic morphology and representative synapses. We quantified the spatial effects of single pulses and short trains of ICMS, including the volume of activated neurons and the density of activated neurons as a function of stimulation intensity.

RESULTS

At all amplitudes, the dominant mode of somatic activation was by antidromic propagation to the soma following axonal activation, rather than via transsynaptic activation. There were no occurrences of direct activation of somata or dendrites. The volume over which antidromic action potentials were initiated grew with stimulation amplitude, while the volume of somatic activation increased marginally. However, the density of somatic activation within the activated volume increased with stimulation amplitude.

CONCLUSIONS

The results resolve the apparent paradox between Stoney and Histed's results by demonstrating that the volume over which action potentials are initiated grows with ICMS amplitude, consistent with Stoney. However, the volume occupied by the activated somata remains approximately constant, while the density of activated neurons within that volume increase, consistent with Histed.

Action force modulates action binding: evidence for a multisensory information integration explanation

Action binding refers to the observation that the perceived time of an action (e.g., a keypress) is shifted towards the distal sensory feedback (usually a sound) triggered by that action. Surprisingly, the role of somatosensory feedback for this phenomenon has been largely ignored. We fill this gap by showing that the somatosensory feedback, indexed by keypress peak force, is functional in judging keypress time. Specifically, the strength of somatosensory feedback is positively correlated with reported keypress time when the keypress is not associated with an auditory feedback and negatively correlated when the keypress triggers an auditory feedback. The result is consistent with the view that the reported keypress time is shaped by sensory information from different modalities. Moreover, individual differences in action binding can be explained by a sensory information weighting between somatosensory and auditory feedback. At the group level, increasing the strength of somatosensory feedback can decrease action binding to a level not being detected statistically. Therefore, a multisensory information integration account (between somatosensory and auditory inputs) explains action binding at both a group level and an individual level.

Proprioception: Bottom-up directive for motor recovery after spinal cord injury

Proprioceptive feedback provides movement-matched sensory information essential for motor control and recovery after spinal cord injury. While it is understood that the fundamental contribution of proprioceptive feedback circuits in locomotor recovery is to activate the local spinal cord interneurons and motor neurons in a context-dependent manner, the precise mechanisms by which proprioception enables motor recovery after a spinal cord injury remain elusive. Furthermore, how proprioception contributes to motor learning mechanisms intrinsic to spinal cord networks and gives rise to motor recovery is currently unknown. This review discusses the existence of motor learning mechanisms intrinsic to spinal cord circuits and circuit-level insights on how proprioception might contribute to spinal cord plasticity, adaptability, and learning, in addition to the logic in which proprioception helps to establish an internal motor command to execute motor output using spared circuits after a spinal cord injury.

The impact of perilaryngeal vibration on the self-perception of loudness and the Lombard effect

The role of somatosensory feedback in speech and the perception of loudness was assessed in adults without speech or hearing disorders. Participants completed two tasks: loudness magnitude estimation of a short vowel and oral reading of a standard passage. Both tasks were carried out in each of three conditions: no-masking, auditory masking alone, and mixed auditory masking plus vibration of the perilaryngeal area. A Lombard effect was elicited in both masking conditions: speakers unconsciously increased vocal intensity. Perilaryngeal vibration further increased vocal intensity above what was observed for auditory masking alone. Both masking conditions affected fundamental frequency and the first formant frequency as well, but only vibration was associated with a significant change in the second formant frequency. An additional analysis of pure-tone thresholds found no difference in auditory thresholds between masking conditions. Taken together, these findings indicate that perilaryngeal vibration effectively masked somatosensory feedback, resulting in an enhanced Lombard effect (increased vocal intensity) that did not alter speakers' self-perception of loudness. This implies that the Lombard effect results from a general sensorimotor process, rather than from a specific audio-vocal mechanism, and that the conscious self-monitoring of speech intensity is not directly based on either auditory or somatosensory feedback.

The clinical relevance of advanced artificial feedback in the control of a multi-functional myoelectric prosthesis

Background

To effectively replace the human hand, a prosthesis should seamlessly respond to user intentions but also convey sensory information back to the user. Restoration of sensory feedback is rated highly by the prosthesis users, and feedback is critical for grasping in able-bodied subjects. Nonetheless, the benefits of feedback in prosthetics are still debated. The lack of consensus is likely due to the complex nature of sensory feedback during prosthesis control, so that its effectiveness depends on multiple factors (e.g., task complexity, user learning).

Methods

We evaluated the impact of these factors with a longitudinal assessment in six amputee subjects, using a clinical setup (socket, embedded control) and a range of tasks (box and blocks, block turn, clothespin and cups relocation). To provide feedback, we have proposed a novel vibrotactile stimulation scheme capable of transmitting multiple variables from a multifunction prosthesis. The subjects wore a bracelet with four by two uniformly placed vibro-tactors providing information on contact, prosthesis state (active function), and grasping force. The subjects also completed a questionnaire for the subjective evaluation of the feedback.

Results

The tests demonstrated that feedback was beneficial only in the complex tasks (block turn, clothespin and cups relocation), and that the training had an important, task-dependent impact. In the clothespin relocation and block turn tasks, training allowed the subjects to establish successful feedforward control, and therefore, the feedback became redundant. In the cups relocation task, however, the subjects needed some training to learn how to properly exploit the feedback. The subjective evaluation of the feedback was consistently positive, regardless of the objective benefits. These results underline the multifaceted nature of closed-loop prosthesis control as, depending on the context, the same feedback interface can have different impact on performance. Finally, even if the closed-loop control does not improve the performance, it could be beneficial as it seems to improve the subjective experience.

Conclusions

Therefore, in this study we demonstrate, for the first time, the relevance of an advanced, multi-variable feedback interface for dexterous, multi-functional prosthesis control in a clinically relevant setting.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12984-018-0371-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.