Search

Previous studies demonstrated that an effector movement intervening between encoding and reaching to a proprioceptive target determines the underlying reference frame: proprioceptive reach targets are represented in a gaze-independent reference frame if no movement occurs but are represented with respect to gaze after an effector movement (Mueller and Fiehler, 2014a). The present experiment explores whether an effector movement leads to a switch from a gaze-independent, body-centered reference frame to a gaze-dependent reference frame or whether a gaze-dependent reference frame is employed in addition to a gaze-independent, body-centered reference frame. Human participants were asked to reach in complete darkness to an unseen finger (proprioceptive target) of their left target hand indicated by a touch. They completed 2 conditions in which the target hand remained either stationary at the target location (stationary condition) or was actively moved to the target location, received a touch and was moved back before reaching to the target (moved condition). We dissociated the location of the movement vector relative to the body midline and to the gaze direction. Using correlation and regression analyses, we estimated the contribution of each reference frame based on horizontal reach errors in the stationary and moved conditions. Gaze-centered coding was only found in the moved condition, replicating our previous results. Body-centered coding dominated in the stationary condition while body- and gaze-centered coding contributed equally strong in the moved condition. Our results indicate a shift from body-centered to combined body- and gaze-centered coding due to an effector movement before reaching towards proprioceptive targets.

Reaching in space requires that the target and the hand are represented in the same coordinate system. While studies on visually-guided reaching consistently demonstrate the use of a gaze-dependent spatial reference frame, controversial results exist in the somatosensory domain. We investigated whether effector movement (eye or arm/hand) after target presentation and before reaching leads to gaze-dependent coding of somatosensory targets. Subjects reached to a felt target while directing gaze towards one of seven fixation locations. Touches were applied to the fingertip(s) of the left hand (proprioceptive-tactile targets) or to the dorsal surface of the left forearm (tactile targets). Effector movement was varied in terms of movement of the target limb or a gaze shift. Horizontal reach errors systematically varied as a function of gaze when a movement of either the target effector or gaze was introduced. However, we found no effect of gaze on horizontal reach errors when a movement was absent before the reach. These findings were comparable for tactile and proprioceptive-tactile targets. Our results suggest that effector movement promotes a switch from a gaze-independent to a gaze-dependent representation of somatosensory reach targets.

We examine whether the task goal affects the accuracy and precision with which participants can localize an unseen hand. Proprioceptive localization was measured using three different tasks: two goal-directed movement tasks (reaching to and reproducing final hand-target location) and a perceptual estimation task in which participants judged the location of the hand-target relative to visual references. We also assessed whether proprioceptive localization in these different tasks is affected by localization from memory, the hand-target being localized (left or right) or the movement path of the proprioceptive target (9 paths, derived from combinations of starting and final hand-target positions). We found that participants were less precise when reaching from memory, but not when reproducing or estimating remembered final hand-target location. Participants also misperceived the felt location of their hands, judging their left hand to be more leftward and their right hand to be more rightward when reaching to and when estimating final hand-target location, but not when reproducing hand-target location. The movement path of the proprioceptive target did not affect localization, regardless of the task goal. Overall, localization seems poorer when proprioception is used to guide a reach with the opposite hand, particularly from memory, and best when merely reproducing the proprioceptive target site. This may have an important application in neuro-rehabilitation, whereby one task may better establish or re-establish important or failing sensory connections.

The present study tested whether non-visual spatial experience affects later acuity of space perception. Congenitally blind adults who differed in the age acquired spatial knowledge via an orientation and mobility (O&M) training and matched sighted controls performed passive arm movements and judged the direction of the sensed movement. Proprioceptive-spatial discrimination acuity was assessed by an adaptive psychophysical procedure in two spatial coding conditions. In the egocentric coding condition, participants judged whether the hand trajectory felt left- or right-tilted in reference to a straight trajectory aligned to the transverse horizontal plane of the body midline axis. In the allocentric coding condition, they indicated whether the hand trajectory felt acute- or obtuse-angled in reference to a right angle. Proprioceptive-spatial acuity of congenitally blind participants significantly covaried with the age they attended an O&M training. The earlier the congenitally blind participants started the O&M training the more accurate was their space perception. Congenitally blind participants who underwent an O&M training after the age of 12 years showed poorer acuity than sighted controls. Congenitally blind participants with an earlier O&M training, however, approached the performance level of the sighted controls. The observed improvement in spatial acuity was more pronounced when judgements were given on the basis of an allocentric than an egocentric frame of reference. These findings suggest that proprioceptive-spatial acuity in adulthood depends on non-visual spatial experience during early development.

In a recent study we could show that during observation of artificial object movements a similar cortical network, including the areas of the so-called human mirror neuron system (hMNS), was activated as during the observation of hand movements. The present study investigated whether activation of the hMNS during the observation of artificial object movements depends more on the visual features of the movements (buttom-up), or, by manipulating the task instructions, on the intentional goal of an observer (top-down). Using a factorial design we recorded the hemodynamic responses in 20 healthy participants while they watched arbitrary artificial object movements following two types of movement trajectories (smooth vs. discontinuous). In one part of the experiment participants had to detect color changes of two objects (color task) and in another part they had to judge whether the movement pattern of two objects could be performed with human hands (simulation task). We found stronger activation in the hMNS during the simulation than during the color task for both types of movement trajectories. In contrast, the color task activated the left ventral-occipital area (human V4). A direct comparison of smooth vs. discontinuous movement trajectories revealed significant effects neither in the structures of the hMNS nor in human V4. The present findings suggest that it is not a specific visual feature, such as a smooth biological movement trajectory, that activates the hMNS. Rather, the hMNS seems to respond when an observed movement is matched to a motor representation triggered by the intentional goal of the observer.