Limits...
Spatially valid proprioceptive cues improve the detection of a visual stimulus.

Jackson CP, Miall RC, Balslev D - Exp Brain Res (2010)

Bottom Line: Proprioceptive cues were given by applying a brief lateral force to the participant's arm, either in the same direction (validly cued) or in the opposite direction (invalidly cued) to the on-screen location of the mask.The d' detection rate of the target increased when the direction of proprioceptive stimulus was compatible with the location of the visual target compared to when it was incompatible.These results suggest that proprioception influences the allocation of attention in visual space.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Centre for Neuroscience Studies, Botterell Hall, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, K7L 3N6, Canada. carl@biomed.queensu.ca

ABSTRACT
Vision and proprioception are the main sensory modalities that convey hand location and direction of movement. Fusion of these sensory signals into a single robust percept is now well documented. However, it is not known whether these modalities also interact in the spatial allocation of attention, which has been demonstrated for other modality pairings. The aim of this study was to test whether proprioceptive signals can spatially cue a visual target to improve its detection. Participants were instructed to use a planar manipulandum in a forward reaching action and determine during this movement whether a near-threshold visual target appeared at either of two lateral positions. The target presentation was followed by a masking stimulus, which made its possible location unambiguous, but not its presence. Proprioceptive cues were given by applying a brief lateral force to the participant's arm, either in the same direction (validly cued) or in the opposite direction (invalidly cued) to the on-screen location of the mask. The d' detection rate of the target increased when the direction of proprioceptive stimulus was compatible with the location of the visual target compared to when it was incompatible. These results suggest that proprioception influences the allocation of attention in visual space.

Show MeSH
Hand path data. a Means (solid lines) and standard errors (dashed lines) of spatially resampled movement paths across all trials and participants for validly (grey) and invalidly (black) cued conditions in Experiment 2. The black squares show the target locations on-screen; the ellipses show the means and standard deviations of hand position at target onset. b Similar data for Experiment 3
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2908745&req=5

Fig3: Hand path data. a Means (solid lines) and standard errors (dashed lines) of spatially resampled movement paths across all trials and participants for validly (grey) and invalidly (black) cued conditions in Experiment 2. The black squares show the target locations on-screen; the ellipses show the means and standard deviations of hand position at target onset. b Similar data for Experiment 3

Mentions: Before each trial, the participants moved the cursor to a start circle at the bottom centre of the screen, with the manipulandum aligned to the body midline. As soon as this position was reached the cursor and start circle disappeared and after 500 ms a fixation cross appeared at the top of the screen to signal the start of the trial. The distance between the start circle and the fixation cross was 16 cm (20 cm in Experiment 3). Participants were instructed to move the robot handle forward in a straight line at a comfortable speed towards the fixation point (Fig. 1c). After the hand had moved 4 cm (6 cm in Experiment 3), a force was applied laterally, perpendicular to the direction of motion. The direction (left or right) was randomized across trials. The applied force profile was based on a β-function that peaked at 13.35 N after 50 ms from onset and decayed to zero after 500 ms, as given by\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$ F(t) = 300t^{0.8} (1 - t)^{14} $$\end{document}where t is the time in seconds. Participants were instructed to continue to move forward after the force impacted on their arm, and not to attempt to correct laterally for the perturbation. Thus, their uncorrected hand path would be deviated diagonally towards the left or the right, depending on which side the force impacted (Fig. 3). The cursor only reappeared at the end of each trial so that there was no visual information about the deviated hand trajectory.


Spatially valid proprioceptive cues improve the detection of a visual stimulus.

Jackson CP, Miall RC, Balslev D - Exp Brain Res (2010)

Hand path data. a Means (solid lines) and standard errors (dashed lines) of spatially resampled movement paths across all trials and participants for validly (grey) and invalidly (black) cued conditions in Experiment 2. The black squares show the target locations on-screen; the ellipses show the means and standard deviations of hand position at target onset. b Similar data for Experiment 3
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2908745&req=5

Fig3: Hand path data. a Means (solid lines) and standard errors (dashed lines) of spatially resampled movement paths across all trials and participants for validly (grey) and invalidly (black) cued conditions in Experiment 2. The black squares show the target locations on-screen; the ellipses show the means and standard deviations of hand position at target onset. b Similar data for Experiment 3
Mentions: Before each trial, the participants moved the cursor to a start circle at the bottom centre of the screen, with the manipulandum aligned to the body midline. As soon as this position was reached the cursor and start circle disappeared and after 500 ms a fixation cross appeared at the top of the screen to signal the start of the trial. The distance between the start circle and the fixation cross was 16 cm (20 cm in Experiment 3). Participants were instructed to move the robot handle forward in a straight line at a comfortable speed towards the fixation point (Fig. 1c). After the hand had moved 4 cm (6 cm in Experiment 3), a force was applied laterally, perpendicular to the direction of motion. The direction (left or right) was randomized across trials. The applied force profile was based on a β-function that peaked at 13.35 N after 50 ms from onset and decayed to zero after 500 ms, as given by\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$ F(t) = 300t^{0.8} (1 - t)^{14} $$\end{document}where t is the time in seconds. Participants were instructed to continue to move forward after the force impacted on their arm, and not to attempt to correct laterally for the perturbation. Thus, their uncorrected hand path would be deviated diagonally towards the left or the right, depending on which side the force impacted (Fig. 3). The cursor only reappeared at the end of each trial so that there was no visual information about the deviated hand trajectory.

Bottom Line: Proprioceptive cues were given by applying a brief lateral force to the participant's arm, either in the same direction (validly cued) or in the opposite direction (invalidly cued) to the on-screen location of the mask.The d' detection rate of the target increased when the direction of proprioceptive stimulus was compatible with the location of the visual target compared to when it was incompatible.These results suggest that proprioception influences the allocation of attention in visual space.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Centre for Neuroscience Studies, Botterell Hall, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, K7L 3N6, Canada. carl@biomed.queensu.ca

ABSTRACT
Vision and proprioception are the main sensory modalities that convey hand location and direction of movement. Fusion of these sensory signals into a single robust percept is now well documented. However, it is not known whether these modalities also interact in the spatial allocation of attention, which has been demonstrated for other modality pairings. The aim of this study was to test whether proprioceptive signals can spatially cue a visual target to improve its detection. Participants were instructed to use a planar manipulandum in a forward reaching action and determine during this movement whether a near-threshold visual target appeared at either of two lateral positions. The target presentation was followed by a masking stimulus, which made its possible location unambiguous, but not its presence. Proprioceptive cues were given by applying a brief lateral force to the participant's arm, either in the same direction (validly cued) or in the opposite direction (invalidly cued) to the on-screen location of the mask. The d' detection rate of the target increased when the direction of proprioceptive stimulus was compatible with the location of the visual target compared to when it was incompatible. These results suggest that proprioception influences the allocation of attention in visual space.

Show MeSH