Morehead, R. | bioRxiv Science

bioRxiv2024

The Origin of Movement Biases During Reaching

Goal-directed movements can fail due to errors in our perceptual and motor systems. While these errors may arise from random noise within these sources, they also reflect systematic motor biases that vary with the location of the target. The origin of these systematic biases remains controversial. Drawing on data from an extensive array of reaching tasks conducted over the past 30 years, we evaluated the merits of various computational models regarding the origin of motor biases. Contrary to previous theories, we show that motor biases do not arise from systematic errors associated with the sensed hand position during motor planning or from the biomechanical constraints imposed during motor execution. Rather, motor biases are primarily caused by a misalignment between eye-centric and body-centric representations of position. This model can account for motor biases across a wide range of contexts, encompassing movements with the right versus left hand, finger versus hand movements, visible and occluded starting positions, as well as before and after sensorimotor adaptation.

neuroscience↗

bioRxiv2022

Implicit adaptation is modulated by the relevance of feedback

Given that informative and relevant feedback in the real world is often intertwined with distracting and irrelevant feedback, we asked how the relevancy of visual feedback impacts implicit sensorimotor adaptation. To tackle this question, we presented multiple cursors as visual feedback in a center-out reaching task and varied the task relevance of these cursors. In other words, participants were instructed to hit a target with a specific task-relevant cursor, while ignoring the other cursors. In Experiment 1, we found that reach aftereffects were attenuated by the mere presence of distracting cursors, compared to reach aftereffects in response to a single task-relevant cursor. The degree of attenuation did not depend on the position of the distracting cursors. In Experiment 2, we examined the interaction between task relevance and attention. Participants were asked to adapt to a task-relevant cursor/target pair, while ignoring the task-irrelevant cursor/target pair. Critically, we jittered the location of the relevant and irrelevant target in an uncorrelated manner, allowing us to index attention via how well participants tracked the position of target. We found that participants who were better at tracking the task-relevant target/cursor pair showed greater aftereffects, and interestingly, the same correlation applied to the task-irrelevant target/cursor pair. Together, these results highlight a novel role of task relevancy on modulating implicit adaptation, perhaps by giving greater attention to informative sources of feedback, increasing the saliency of the sensory prediction error.

neuroscience↗