↓ Skip to main content

Prior experience and current goals affect muscle-spindle and tactile integration

Overview of attention for article published in Experimental Brain Research, December 2005
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 Mendeley
Title
Prior experience and current goals affect muscle-spindle and tactile integration
Published in
Experimental Brain Research, December 2005
DOI 10.1007/s00221-005-0154-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ely Rabin, Andrew M. Gordon

Abstract

We previously have shown that reports of illusory elbow extension from biceps vibration can be attenuated by touching a stationary cue-surface with the index fingertip of a vibrated arm. However, this was not the case if the subject had previously felt genuine motion of the cue-surface without biceps vibration. Two potential explanations for this are that the sense of elbow orientation results from tactile and muscle stretch cues that are integrated based on (1) an awareness of the tactile cue's mobility or (2) specific patterns of tactile and muscle spindle activity resembling the elbow motion during previous interactions with the tactile cue. We tested these hypotheses by comparing how touching the cue-surface attenuated the reports of arm movement during biceps vibration after a demonstration of the cue- surface mobility without involving any elbow motion versus simultaneously touching the cue-surface as it moved and extending the elbow to correspond exactly to the elbow extension illusion during vibration. Touching the cue-surface stopped attenuating the reports of elbow extension during biceps vibration only after experiencing actual cue-surface motion while moving the elbow . This supports the second hypothesis that tactile and muscle stretch feedback that are integrated based on specific patterns of tactile and muscle spindle activity recalled from previous interactions with the tactile cue. We also tested the influence of motor set on the sense of elbow position in this paradigm. We found that even after touching the stationary cue-surface had ceased to attenuate illusory elbow motion during biceps vibration, illusory elbow motion during vibration still could be attenuated. This was possible if the subjects intended to actively use their wrists rather than the elbow to maintain fingertip contact. We conclude that muscle stretch and tactile cues are integrated to locate the arm within a highly specific context associated with tactile and proprioceptive feedback from prior experience and current movement goals.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Belgium 1 3%
Canada 1 3%
Unknown 29 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 29%
Researcher 4 13%
Professor 4 13%
Other 3 10%
Student > Postgraduate 3 10%
Other 7 23%
Unknown 1 3%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 5 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 16%
Engineering 4 13%
Neuroscience 4 13%
Other 6 19%
Unknown 2 6%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 January 2019.
All research outputs
#7,453,827
of 22,787,797 outputs
Outputs from Experimental Brain Research
#900
of 3,223 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,057
of 146,889 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Experimental Brain Research
#7
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,787,797 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,223 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 146,889 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.