Biology subjects

Van Caenegem, E. E.

Publications and source records attributed to Van Caenegem, E. E..

4 recordsLinked to original sources

bioRxiv2025

Information processing in the Hand Laterality Judgement Task: Fundamental differences between dorsal and palmar views revealed by a Forced Response paradigm

Imagining performing movements (motor imagery) has broad applications from fundamental neuroscience to sports and rehabilitation. However, measuring motor imagery ability is challenging due to its covert nature. While the Hand Laterality Judgement Task (HLJT) has been investigated as a measure of implicit motor imagery ability, our understanding of mechanisms underlying performance of the task is limited. We used a forced response paradigm to study the time-course of information processing in the HLJT. Participants (N=54) performed a modified HLJT where the time they had to process the stimulus was manipulated on a trial-by-trial basis, allowing us to reconstruct the time-course of information processing. Generalised Additive Mixed Models assessed the relationship between processing time and accuracy, which varied across rotation angles (0{degrees} to 180{degrees} in 45{degrees} steps), hand views (dorsal or palmar) or directions (medial or lateral). Stimulus rotation substantively increased the time needed to produce a correct response, although this effect was non-monotonic. Computational modelling confirmed a crucial interaction between hand view and rotation angle, identifying fundamental differences in processing for palmar stimuli with more extreme rotations ([≥]135{degrees}) compared to other stimuli. Finally, a biomechanical constraints effect (i.e. faster processing of medial vs laterally rotated stimuli) was present in both views, but was only statistically significant in palmar views, again suggesting differences in processing palmar and dorsal stimuli. These results improve our understanding of the cognitive processes underlying the HLJT and may have broader importance for our understanding of mental processes implicated in motor imagery.

neuroscience↗

bioRxiv2024

Separate timescales for spatial and anatomical information processing during action observation

Observing different body stimuli can influence the speed and accuracy of our responses. Prior work indicates this effect is influenced by factors such as spatial congruence and perspective. We hypothesized that the influence of these factors would vary depending on the amount of time that participants had to process visual stimuli. Experiment 1 was a reaction time task (n=29) with stimuli varying in spatial congruence (congruent, incongruent, neutral), perspective (first- or third-person) and stimulus type (body or control). Experiment 2 (n=50) used the same stimuli in a "Forced Response" paradigm, which controlled the time participants had to prepare a response. This allowed us to assess responses as a function of preparation time. Experiment 1 showed effects of spatial congruence, with longer reaction times and more errors for spatially incongruent stimuli. This effect was greater for body stimuli. Experiment 2 showed that spatial information was processed faster than anatomical information, inducing incorrect responses at short preparation times for spatially incongruent body stimuli. There was little-to-no corresponding effect for control stimuli. Both experiments also showed weak-to-no effects of perspective, which appear to have been driven by spatial congruence. Our results indicate that spatial information is processed faster than anatomical information during observation of body stimuli. These data are consistent with the dual visual streams hypothesis, whereby spatial information would be processed rapidly via the dorsal stream, while anatomical processing would occur later via the ventral stream. These data also indicate differences in processing between body and control stimuli. Public significance statementsThis study provides novel insight into the time-course of information processing, showing that spatial information is processed faster than anatomical information for body stimuli. The results also challenge the established view that visual perspective is critical to process body stimuli, demonstrating that this may instead result from lower-level effects of spatial congruence.

neuroscience↗

bioRxiv2024

Multisensory approach in Mental Imagery: ALE meta-analyses comparing Motor, Visual and Auditory Imagery

Mental Imagery is a topic of longstanding and widespread scientific interest. Individual studies have typically focused on a single modality (e.g. Motor, Visual, Auditory) of Mental Imagery. Relatively little work has considered directly comparing and contrasting the brain networks associated with these different modalities of Imagery. The present study integrates data from 439 neuroimaging experiments to identify both modality-specific and shared neural networks involved in Mental Imagery. Comparing the networks involved in Motor, Visual, and Auditory Imagery identified a pattern whereby each form of Imagery preferentially recruited higher level associative brain regions involved in the associated real experience. Results also indicate significant overlap in a left-lateralized network including the pre-supplementary motor area, ventral premotor cortex and inferior parietal lobule. This pattern of results supports the existence of a core network that supports the attentional, spatial, and decision-making demands of Mental Imagery. Together these results offer new insights into the brain networks underlying human imagination. HighlightsO_LIMeta-Analyses of Motor, Visual, and Auditory modalities of Imagery were compared C_LIO_LIEach modality recruited high level areas related to associated real-life experience C_LIO_LIA core network of pre-SMA, PMv and IPL were recruited by all imagery modalities C_LIO_LIResults emphasize attentional, spatial, & executive aspects of Mental Imagery C_LI

neuroscience↗

bioRxiv2022

Consistent Under-reporting of Task Details in Motor Imagery Research

Motor Imagery is a subject of longstanding scientific interest. However, critical details of motor imagery protocols are not always reported in full, hampering direct replication and translation of this work. The present review provides a quantitative assessment of the prevalence of under-reporting in the recent motor imagery literature. Publications from the years 2018-2020 were examined, with 695 meeting the inclusion criteria for further examination. Of these studies, 64% (445/695) did not provide information about the modality of motor imagery (i.e., kinesthetic, visual, or a mixture of both) used in the study. When visual or mixed imagery was specified, the details of the visual perspective to be used (i.e., first person, third person, or combinations of both) were not reported in 24% (25/103) of studies. Further analysis indicated that studies using questionnaires to assess motor imagery reported more information than those that did not. We conclude that studies using motor imagery consistently under-report key details of their protocols, which poses a significant problem for understanding, replicating, and translating motor imagery effects.

neuroscience↗