↓ Skip to main content

Decoupled Visually-Guided Reaching in Optic Ataxia: Differences in Motor Control between Canonical and Non-Canonical Orientations in Space

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, December 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Decoupled Visually-Guided Reaching in Optic Ataxia: Differences in Motor Control between Canonical and Non-Canonical Orientations in Space
Published in
PLOS ONE, December 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0086138
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joshua A. Granek, Laure Pisella, John Stemberger, Alain Vighetto, Yves Rossetti, Lauren E. Sergio

Abstract

Guiding a limb often involves situations in which the spatial location of the target for gaze and limb movement are not congruent (i.e. have been decoupled). Such decoupled situations involve both the implementation of a cognitive rule (i.e. strategic control) and the online monitoring of the limb position relative to gaze and target (i.e. sensorimotor recalibration). To further understand the neural mechanisms underlying these different types of visuomotor control, we tested patient IG who has bilateral caudal superior parietal lobule (SPL) damage resulting in optic ataxia (OA), and compared her performance with six age-matched controls on a series of center-out reaching tasks. The tasks comprised 1) directing a cursor that had been rotated (180° or 90°) within the same spatial plane as the visual display, or 2) moving the hand along a different spatial plane than the visual display (horizontal or para-sagittal). Importantly, all conditions were performed towards visual targets located along either the horizontal axis (left and right; which can be guided from strategic control) or the diagonal axes (top-left and top-right; which require on-line trajectory elaboration and updating by sensorimotor recalibration). The bilateral OA patient performed much better in decoupled visuomotor control towards the horizontal targets, a canonical situation in which well-categorized allocentric cues could be utilized (i.e. guiding cursor direction perpendicular to computer monitor border). Relative to neurologically intact adults, IG's performance suffered towards diagonal targets, a non-canonical situation in which only less-categorized allocentric cues were available (i.e. guiding cursor direction at an off-axis angle to computer monitor border), and she was therefore required to rely on sensorimotor recalibration of her decoupled limb. We propose that an intact caudal SPL is crucial for any decoupled visuomotor control, particularly when relying on the realignment between vision and proprioception without reliable allocentric cues towards non-canonical orientations in space.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Unknown 44 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 22%
Researcher 8 17%
Student > Master 7 15%
Professor 4 9%
Student > Postgraduate 3 7%
Other 8 17%
Unknown 6 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 15 33%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 13%
Neuroscience 5 11%
Sports and Recreations 3 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 9 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 17 January 2014.
All research outputs
#15,290,667
of 22,739,983 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#130,341
of 194,087 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189,544
of 304,448 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#3,412
of 5,433 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,739,983 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 194,087 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 304,448 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,433 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.