RESUMO
The role of arm proprioception in motor learning was investigated in experiments in which, by moving the arm, subjects followed the motion of a target displayed on a monitor screen. Adaptive capabilities were tested in visuomanual tracking tasks following alterations in the relationship between the observer's actual arm movement and visual feedback of the arm movement given by a cursor motion on the screen. Tracking performance and adaptive changes, measured in terms of spatiotemporal error, tracking trajectory curvature, and spatial gain, were compared in 7 control subjects (CSs) and in 1 deafferented subject (DS). CSs adapted appropriately to altered visuomanual relationships; those changes were present in trials immediately after restoration of normal scaling. In contrast, although the DS modified his tracking strategy from trial to trial according to the altered conditions, he did not show plastic changes in internal visuomanual scaling. Like the results of prismatic adaptation experiments, the present results suggest that arm proprioception contributes to the plastic changes that follow alterations in the scaling of visuomanual gain.
RESUMO
1. When a visual target is moved by the subject's hand (self-moved target tracking), smooth pursuit (SP) characteristics differ from eye-alone tracking: SP latency is shorter and maximal eye velocity is higher in self-moved target tracking than in eye-alone tracking. The aim of this study was to determine which signals (motor command and/or proprioception) generated during arm motion are responsible for the decreased time interval between arm and eye motion onsets in self-moved target tracking. 2. Six control subjects tracked a visual target whose motion was generated by active or passive movements of the observer's arm in order to determine the role played by arm proprioception in the arm-eye coordination. In a second experiment, the participation of two subjects suffering complete loss of proprioception allowed us to assess the contribution of arm motor command signals. 3. In control subjects, passive movement of the arm led to eye latencies significantly longer (130 ms) than when the arm was actively self-moved (-5 ms:negative values meaning that the eyes actually started to move before the target) but slightly shorter than in eye-alone tracking (150 ms). These observations indicate that active movement of the arm is necessary to trigger short-latency SP of self-moved targets. 4. Despite the lack of proprioceptive information about arm motion, the two deafferented subjects produced early SP (-8 ms on average) when they actively moved their arms. In this respect they did not differ from control subjects. Active control of the arm is thus sufficient to trigger short-latency SP. However, in contrast with control subjects, in deafferented subjects SP gain declined with increasing target motion frequency more rapidly in self-moved target tracking than in eye-alone tracking. 5. The deafferented subjects also tracked a self-moved target while the relationship between arm and target motions was altered either by introducing a delay between arm motion and target motion or by reversing target motion relative to arm motion. As with control subjects, delayed target motion did not affect SP latency. Furthermore, the deafferented subjects adapted to the reversed arm-target relationship faster than control subjects. 6. The results suggest that arm motor command is necessary for the eye-to-arm motion onset synchronization, because eye tracking of the passively moved arm was performed by control subjects with a latency comparable with that of eye-alone tracking of an external target. On the other hand, as evidenced by the data from the deafferented subjects, afferent information does not appear to be necessary for reducing the time between arm motion and SP onsets. However, afferent information appears to contribute to the parametric adjustment between arm motor command and visual information about arm motion.