↓ Skip to main content

Proprioceptive loss and the perception, control and learning of arm movements in humans: evidence from sensory neuronopathy

Overview of attention for article published in Experimental Brain Research, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
16 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
112 Mendeley
Title
Proprioceptive loss and the perception, control and learning of arm movements in humans: evidence from sensory neuronopathy
Published in
Experimental Brain Research, May 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00221-018-5289-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

R. Chris Miall, Nick M. Kitchen, Se-Ho Nam, Hannah Lefumat, Alix G. Renault, Kristin Ørstavik, Jonathan D. Cole, Fabrice R. Sarlegna

Abstract

It is uncertain how vision and proprioception contribute to adaptation of voluntary arm movements. In normal participants, adaptation to imposed forces is possible with or without vision, suggesting that proprioception is sufficient; in participants with proprioceptive loss (PL), adaptation is possible with visual feedback, suggesting that proprioception is unnecessary. In experiment 1 adaptation to, and retention of, perturbing forces were evaluated in three chronically deafferented participants. They made rapid reaching movements to move a cursor toward a visual target, and a planar robot arm applied orthogonal velocity-dependent forces. Trial-by-trial error correction was observed in all participants. Such adaptation has been characterized with a dual-rate model: a fast process that learns quickly, but retains poorly and a slow process that learns slowly and retains well. Experiment 2 showed that the PL participants had large individual differences in learning and retention rates compared to normal controls. Experiment 3 tested participants' perception of applied forces. With visual feedback, the PL participants could report the perturbation's direction as well as controls; without visual feedback, thresholds were elevated. Experiment 4 showed, in healthy participants, that force direction could be estimated from head motion, at levels close to the no-vision threshold for the PL participants. Our results show that proprioceptive loss influences perception, motor control and adaptation but that proprioception from the moving limb is not essential for adaptation to, or detection of, force fields. The differences in learning and retention seen between the three deafferented participants suggest that they achieve these tasks in idiosyncratic ways after proprioceptive loss, possibly integrating visual and vestibular information with individual cognitive strategies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 112 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 112 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 25%
Researcher 13 12%
Student > Bachelor 9 8%
Student > Master 8 7%
Professor 6 5%
Other 15 13%
Unknown 33 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 18 16%
Engineering 13 12%
Psychology 10 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 7%
Sports and Recreations 7 6%
Other 13 12%
Unknown 43 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 10 April 2019.
All research outputs
#3,622,437
of 24,980,180 outputs
Outputs from Experimental Brain Research
#273
of 3,392 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,456
of 336,116 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Experimental Brain Research
#4
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,980,180 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,392 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 336,116 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.