Task-relevant visual feedback uncertainty attenuates visuomotor adaptation.

Motor adaptation is attenuated when sensory feedback about the movement is uncertain. Although this was initially shown for small visual errors, attenuation seems not to hold when visual errors are larger and the contributions of implicit adaptation are isolated with the error-clamp method, which makes visual feedback task-irrelevant. Here we ask whether adaptation to a similarly large perturbation is attenuated when task-relevant visual feedback is uncertain. In a first experiment, we tested participants on a 30° movement-contingent visuomotor rotation under both low (cursor) and high (cloud of moving dots) visual feedback uncertainty. In line with optimal integration, we found that the early increase in adaptation and final extent of adaptation were reduced with high feedback uncertainty. In a second experiment, we included several blocks of no-feedback trials during the perturbation block to quantify the contribution of implicit adaptation. Results showed that implicit adaptation was smaller with high compared to low feedback uncertainty throughout the perturbation block. The estimated contribution of explicit adaptation was overall small, particularly for high feedback uncertainty. Our results demonstrate an influence of task-relevant visual feedback, and the resulting target errors, on implicit adaptation. We show that our motor system is sensitive to the feedback it receives even for larger error sizes and accordingly adjusts its learning properties when our ability to achieve the task goal is affected.NEW & NOTEWORTHY Motor adaptation is linked to the estimation of our actions. Whereas uncertainty of task-irrelevant visual feedback appears not to influence implicit adaptation for errors beyond a certain size, here we tested whether this is still the case for task-relevant feedback. We show that implicit adaptation is attenuated when task-relevant visual feedback is uncertain, suggesting a dependency on the assessment of not just sensory prediction errors but also target errors.

Optimality of multisensory integration while compensating for uncertain visual target information with artificial vibrotactile cues during reach planning.

BACKGROUND: Planning and executing movements requires the integration of different sensory modalities, such as vision and proprioception. However, neurological diseases like stroke can lead to full or partial loss of proprioception, resulting in impaired movements. Recent advances focused on providing additional sensory feedback to patients to compensate for the sensory loss, proving vibrotactile stimulation to be a viable option as it is inexpensive and easy to implement. Here, we test how such vibrotactile information can be integrated with visual signals to estimate the spatial location of a reach target. METHODS: We used a center-out reach paradigm with 31 healthy human participants to investigate how artificial vibrotactile stimulation can be integrated with visual-spatial cues indicating target location. Specifically, we provided multisite vibrotactile stimulation to the moving dominant arm using eccentric rotating mass (ERM) motors. As the integration of inputs across multiple sensory modalities becomes especially relevant when one of them is uncertain, we additionally modulated the reliability of visual cues. We then compared the weighing of vibrotactile and visual inputs as a function of visual uncertainty to predictions from the maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) framework to decide if participants achieve quasi-optimal integration. RESULTS: Our results show that participants could estimate target locations based on vibrotactile instructions. After short training, combined visual and vibrotactile cues led to higher hit rates and reduced reach errors when visual cues were uncertain. Additionally, we observed lower reaction times in trials with low visual uncertainty when vibrotactile stimulation was present. Using MLE predictions, we found that integration of vibrotactile and visual cues followed optimal integration when vibrotactile cues required the detection of one or two active motors. However, if estimating the location of a target required discriminating the intensities of two cues, integration violated MLE predictions. CONCLUSION: We conclude that participants can quickly learn to integrate visual and artificial vibrotactile information. Therefore, using additional vibrotactile stimulation may serve as a promising way to improve rehabilitation or the control of prosthetic devices by patients suffering loss of proprioception.