Experiencing the Cross-Sensory Error Signal During Movement Leads to Proprioceptive Recalibration

Implicit Sensorimotor Adaptation Proceeds in Absence of Movement Execution

In implicit sensorimotor adaptation, a mismatch between the predicted and actual sensory feedback results in a sensory prediction error (SPE). Sensory predictions have long been thought to be linked to descending motor commands, implying a necessary contribution of movement execution to adaptation. However, recent work has shown that mere motor imagery (MI) also engages predictive mechanisms, opening up the possibility that MI might be sufficient to drive implicit adaptation. In a within-subject design in humans (n = 30), implicit adaptation was assessed in a center-out reaching task, following a single exposure to a visuomotor rotation. It was hypothesized that performing MI of a reaching movement while being provided with an animation of rotated visual feedback (MI condition) would lead to postrotation biases (PRBs) similar to those observed when the movement is executed (Execution condition). Results revealed that both the MI and Execution conditions led to significant directional biases following rotated trials. Yet the magnitude of these biases was significantly larger in the Execution condition. To further probe the contribution of MI to adaptation, a Control condition was conducted in which participants were presented with the same rotated visual animation as in the MI condition, but in which they were prevented from performing MI. Surprisingly, significant biases were also observed in the Control condition, suggesting that MI per se may not have accounted for adaptation. Overall, these results suggest that implicit adaptation can be partially supported by processes other than those that strictly pertain to generating motor commands, although movement execution does potentiate it.

Improved proprioception does not benefit visuomotor adaptation

Visuomotor adaptation arises when reaching in an altered visual environment, where one's seen hand position does not match their felt (i.e., proprioceptive) hand position in space. Here, we asked if proprioceptive training benefits visuomotor adaptation, and if these benefits arise due to implicit (unconscious) or explicit (conscious strategy) processes. Seventy-two participants were divided equally into 3 groups: proprioceptive training with feedback (PTWF), proprioceptive training no feedback (PTNF), and Control (CTRL). The PTWF and PTNF groups completed passive proprioceptive training, where a participant's hand was moved to an unknown reference location and they judged the felt position of their unseen hand relative to their body midline on every trial. The PTWF group received verbal feedback with respect to their response accuracy on the middle 60% of trials, whereas the PTNF did not receive any feedback during training. The CTRL group did not complete proprioceptive training and instead sat quietly during this time. Following proprioceptive training or time delay, all three groups reached when seeing a cursor that was rotated 30° clockwise relative to their hand motion. The experiment ended with participants completing a series of no-cursor reaches to assess implicit and explicit adaptation. Results indicated that the PTWF group improved the accuracy of their sense of felt hand position following proprioceptive training. However, this improved proprioceptive acuity (i.e., the accuracy of their sense of felt hand) did not benefit visuomotor adaptation, as all three groups showed similar visuomotor adaptation across rotated reach training trials. Visuomotor adaptation arose implicitly, with minimal explicit contribution for all three groups. Together, these results suggest that passive proprioceptive training does not benefit, nor hinder, the extent of implicit visuomotor adaptation established immediately following reach training with a 30° cursor rotation.