Visually-updated hand state estimates modulate the proprioceptive reflex independently of motor task requirements
- NTT Communication Science Laboratories, Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Co., Japan
Figures
Figure 1
Experimental setups.
(A) Participants’ right hand was fixed to a wrist manipulandum, which allowed only flexion and extension movement of wrist joint. Visual feedback was displayed on a horizontally set screen. (B) …
Figure 2 with 1 supplement
Responses to a mechanical perturbation applied during visually guided wrist flexion movements of Agonist group in Experiment 1.
(A) Temporal profiles of wrist movements with different visual feedback (representative participant). All data were aligned at the position where the mechanical perturbations were applied. Dotted …
-
Figure 2—source data 1
Data of Agonist group in Experiment 1 including quantified muscle activities and movement profiles of each participant.
- https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/52380/elife-52380-fig2-data1-v1.txt
Figure 2—figure supplement 1
Additional movement profiles of Agonist group in Experiment 1.
(A) Movement durations in all visual rotation conditions. Main effect of visual feedback was not significant (p=0.31, F(4, 17)=1.23, partial η2 = 0.067). (B) Movement endpoint of unperturbed trials …
Figure 3 with 1 supplement
Responses to a mechanical perturbation applied during visually guided wrist flexion movements of Antagonist group in Experiment 1.
(A) Temporal profiles of wrist movements with different visual feedback (representative participant). Dotted curves show unperturbed trials and solid curves show perturbed trials. Blue, magenta, and …
-
Figure 3—source data 1
Data of Antagonist group in Experiment 1 including quantified muscle activities and movement profiles of each participant.
- https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/52380/elife-52380-fig3-data1-v1.txt
Figure 3—figure supplement 1
Additional movement profiles of Antagonist group in Experiment 1.
(A) Movement durations in all visual rotation conditions. Main effect of visual feedback was not significant (p=0.15, F(4, 9)=1.78, partial η2 = 0.16). (B) Movement endpoint of unperturbed trials in …
Figure 4 with 1 supplement
Visual feedback effects on stretch reflexes in Experiment 2.
(A) Experimental conditions and visual feedbacks. Normal and Mirror conditions were inflicted in different blocks while Show and Hide conditions appeared randomly within each block. (B) Temporal …
-
Figure 4—source data 1
Group data of Experiment 2 including quantified muscle activities and movement profiles.
- https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/52380/elife-52380-fig4-data1-v1.txt
Figure 4—figure supplement 1
Additional movement profiles in Experiment 2.
(A) Movement durations in four conditions. Two-way ANOVA found significant effect of factor for visual feedback type (p=0.043, F(1, 9)=5.56, partial η2 = 0.38), cursor visibility (p=0.026, F(1, 9)=7.…
Figure 5 with 1 supplement
Cursor elimination effects on stretch reflexes in Experiment 3.
(A) Schematic diagram of the experimental task. The visual cursor disappeared (shown as dotted curves in the right panels) after passing one of three different locations in the test conditions, …
-
Figure 5—source data 1
Group data of Experiment 3 including quantified muscle activities, movement profiles, and duration of cursor elimination.
- https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/52380/elife-52380-fig5-data1-v1.txt
Figure 5—figure supplement 1
Additional movement profiles in Experiment 3.
(A) Movement durations in four conditions. Main effect of cursor elimination was not significant (p=0.052, F(4, 9)=2.93, partial η2 = 0.25). (B) Movement endpoints of unperturbed trials in four …
Figure 6
Schematic diagram of Experiment 4.
(A) Pro/Anti-reaction session. Left panels show the task in baseline trial, middle panels show the task in forward target jump trial, and right panels show the task in backward target jump trial. …
Figure 7 with 1 supplement
Temporal patterns of hand acceleration, Flexor rEMG, and Extensor rEMG.
(A) Pro/Anti-reaction session (representative participant). All data were aligned to the onset timing of the target jump. Gray solid line: baseline; Dashed line: Forward target jump; Dash-dot line: …
Figure 7—figure supplement 1
Response latencies for target jump in Pro/Anti-reaction sessions.
Each line is an individual participant’s data. Bars are the group mean. The response latency of acceleration was 165.0 ± 4.2 ms (group mean ±SE) for Pro and 255.8 ± 9.1 ms for Anti. Similarly, the …
Figure 8 with 2 supplements
Reflexive muscle reactions (Flexor) to target jump and to mechanical perturbation in Normal/Mirror and in Pro/Anti-reaction sessions of Experiment 4.
(A) Mean flexor Δv-EMG amplitudes, obtained by (v-EMG for forward correction) − v-EMG for backward correction). Δv-EMG in Pro-reaction condition was greater than that in Anti-reaction condition. …
-
Figure 8—source data 1
Group data of Experiment 4 including long-latency stretch reflex, Δv-EMG, response latencies, and movement profiles.
- https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/52380/elife-52380-fig8-data1-v1.txt
Figure 8—figure supplement 1
Additional movement profiles in Experiment 4.
(A) Movement durations in Pro/Anti-reaction and Normal/Mirror sessions. Values were not significantly different between Pro and Anti block (p=0.80, t(7) = 0.27, d = 0.022) nor between Normal and …
Figure 8—figure supplement 2
Reflexive muscle reactions (Extensor) to target jump in Pro/Anti-reaction and in Normal/Mirror sessions of Experiment 4.
(A) Mean extensor Δv-EMG amplitudes, obtained by (v-EMG for backward correction) - (v-EMG for forward correction). Extensor Δv-EMG in Pro-reaction condition was greater than that in Anti-reaction …
Tables
Table 1
Trial conditions in Experiment 2.
| Block (Direction) | Target | Cursor | Perturbation | # of trials |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Normal | Std | Show | MP | 4 |
| N | 6 | |||
| Hide | MP | 4 | ||
| N | 6 | |||
| Near | Show | N | 5 | |
| Hide | N | 5 | ||
| Far | Show | N | 5 | |
| Hide | N | 5 | ||
| Mirror | Std | Show | MP | 4 |
| N | 6 | |||
| Hide | MP | 4 | ||
| N | 6 | |||
| Near | Show | N | 5 | |
| Hide | N | 5 | ||
| Far | Show | N | 5 | |
| Hide | N | 5 |
Table 2
Trial conditions in Experiment 3.
| Target | Cursor | Perturbation | # of trials |
|---|---|---|---|
| Std | Show | MP | 4 |
| N | 6 | ||
| Short-hide | MP | 4 | |
| N | 6 | ||
| Middle-hide | MP | 4 | |
| N | 6 | ||
| Long-hide | MP | 4 | |
| N | 6 | ||
| Near | Show | N | 10 |
| Long-hide | N | 10 | |
| Far | Show | N | 10 |
| Long-hide | N | 10 |
Table 3
Session and bock conditions in Experiment 4.
| Session | Block (randomized in each session) |
|---|---|
| Pro/Anti | Pro-reaction x 2 |
| Anti-reaction x 2 | |
| Normal/Mirror | Normal x 2 |
| Mirror x 2 |
Table 4
Trial conditions in each block in Experiment 4.
| MP/Target jump | # of trials (randomized in each block) |
|---|---|
| No (baseline) | 12 |
| MP | 12 |
| Forward jump | 18 |
| Backward jump | 18 |
Additional files
-
Source code 1
Individual EMG and kinematic data.
- https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/52380/elife-52380-code1-v1.mat
-
Transparent reporting form
- https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/52380/elife-52380-transrepform-v1.docx
