↓ Skip to main content

Illusory Reversal of Causality between Touch and Vision has No Effect on Prism Adaptation Rate

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
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
Illusory Reversal of Causality between Touch and Vision has No Effect on Prism Adaptation Rate
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00545
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hirokazu Tanaka, Kazuhiro Homma, Hiroshi Imamizu

Abstract

Learning, according to Oxford Dictionary, is "to gain knowledge or skill by studying, from experience, from being taught, etc." In order to learn from experience, the central nervous system has to decide what action leads to what consequence, and temporal perception plays a critical role in determining the causality between actions and consequences. In motor adaptation, causality between action and consequence is implicitly assumed so that a subject adapts to a new environment based on the consequence caused by her action. Adaptation to visual displacement induced by prisms is a prime example; the visual error signal associated with the motor output contributes to the recovery of accurate reaching, and a delayed feedback of visual error can decrease the adaptation rate. Subjective feeling of temporal order of action and consequence, however, can be modified or even reversed when her sense of simultaneity is manipulated with an artificially delayed feedback. Our previous study (Tanaka et al., 2011; Exp. Brain Res.) demonstrated that the rate of prism adaptation was unaffected when the subjective delay of visual feedback was shortened. This study asked whether subjects could adapt to prism adaptation and whether the rate of prism adaptation was affected when the subjective temporal order was illusory reversed. Adapting to additional 100 ms delay and its sudden removal caused a positive shift of point of simultaneity in a temporal order judgment experiment, indicating an illusory reversal of action and consequence. We found that, even in this case, the subjects were able to adapt to prism displacement with the learning rate that was statistically indistinguishable to that without temporal adaptation. This result provides further evidence to the dissociation between conscious temporal perception and motor adaptation.

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 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 2 7%
Unknown 27 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 17%
Student > Bachelor 4 14%
Student > Master 4 14%
Researcher 4 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 10%
Other 5 17%
Unknown 4 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 10 34%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 14%
Engineering 3 10%
Sports and Recreations 3 10%
Neuroscience 2 7%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 4 14%
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 11 December 2012.
All research outputs
#20,176,348
of 22,689,790 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#23,796
of 29,423 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#221,229
of 244,142 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#406
of 481 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,689,790 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,423 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 244,142 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 481 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.