4.2 Article

Proprioceptive recalibration arises slowly compared to reach adaptation

期刊

EXPERIMENTAL BRAIN RESEARCH
卷 234, 期 8, 页码 2201-2213

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00221-016-4624-6

关键词

Reach adaptation; Proprioceptive recalibration; Time course; Motor learning

资金

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

When subjects reach in a novel visuomotor environment (e.g. while viewing a cursor representing their hand that is rotated from their hand's actual position), they typically adjust their movements (i.e. bring the cursor to the target), thus reducing reaching errors. Additionally, research has shown that reaching with altered visual feedback of the hand results in sensory changes, such that proprioceptive estimates of hand position are shifted in the direction of the visual feedback experienced (Cressman and Henriques in J Neurophysiol 102:3505-3518, 2009). This study looked to establish the time course of these sensory changes. Additionally, the time courses of implicit sensory and motor changes were compared. Subjects reached to a single visual target while seeing a cursor that was either aligned with their hand position (50 trials) or rotated 30A degrees clockwise relative to their hand (150 trials). Reach errors and proprioceptive estimates of felt hand position were assessed following the aligned reach training trials and at seven different times during the rotated reach training trials by having subjects reach to the target without visual feedback, and provide estimates of their hand relative to a visual reference marker, respectively. Results revealed a shift in proprioceptive estimates throughout the rotated reach training trials; however, significant sensory changes were not observed until after 70 trials. In contrast, results showed a greater change in reaches after a limited number of reach training trials with the rotated cursor. These findings suggest that proprioceptive recalibration arises more slowly than reach adaptation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据