Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26441353›Full record

ArticleCurrent biology : CB2015

Sensory Feedback Reduces Individuality by Increasing Variability within Subjects.

Miranda J Cullins, Jeffrey P Gill, Jeffrey M McManus, Hui Lu, Kendrick M Shaw, Hillel J Chiel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current biology : CB, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Miranda J CullinsDepartment of Biology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH 44106-7080, USA.
Jeffrey P GillDepartment of Biology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH 44106-7080, USA.
Jeffrey M McManusDepartment of Biology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH 44106-7080, USA.
Hui LuDepartment of Biology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH 44106-7080, USA.
Kendrick M ShawDepartment of Biology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH 44106-7080, USA.
Hillel J ChielDepartment of Biology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH 44106-7080, USA; Department of Neurosciences, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH 44106-7080, USA; Department of Biomedical Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH 44106-7080, USA. Electronic address: hjc@case.edu.

Funding

Neuromechanics of Multifunctionality in AplysiaR01NS047073 · NINDS · CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY · PI CHIEL, HILLEL J · 2005 to 2008
$1.4M
Photonic Analgesia: Controlled Inhibition of Peripheral Nerve with Infrared LightR56NS087249 · NINDS · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI JANSEN, E. DUCO · 2014 to 2014
$381k
NINDS NIH HHS NS047073NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS047073NINDS NIH HHS R56 NS087249
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Behavioral variability is ubiquitous [1-6], yet variability is more than just noise. Indeed, humans exploit their individual motor variability to improve tracing and reaching tasks [7]. What controls motor variability? Increasing the variability of sensory input, or applying force perturbations during a task, increases task variability [8, 9]. Sensory feedback may also increase task-irrelevant variability [9, 10]. In contrast, sensory feedback during locust flight or to multiple cortical areas just prior to task performance decreases variability during task-relevant motor behavior [11, 12]. Thus, how sensory feedback affects both task-relevant and task-irrelevant motor outputs must be understood. Furthermore, since motor control is studied in populations, the effects of sensory feedback on variability must also be understood within and across subjects. For example, during locomotion, each step may vary within and across individuals, even when behavior is normalized by step cycle duration [13]. Our previous work demonstrated that motor components that matter for effective behavior show less individuality [14]. Is sensory feedback the mechanism for reducing individuality? We analyzed durations and relative timings of motor pools within swallowing motor patterns in the presence and absence of sensory feedback and related these motor program components to behavior. Here, at the level of identified motor neurons, we show that sensory feedback to motor program components highly correlated with behavioral efficacy reduces variability across subjects but-surprisingly-increases variability within subjects. By controlling intrinsic, individual differences in motor neuronal activity, sensory feedback provides each subject access to a common solution space.

Indexed as

Feedback, SensoryAnalysis of VarianceAnimalsAplysiaFeeding BehaviorIndividualityMotor ActivityMotor NeuronsTask Performance and Analysis

Identifiers

PMID26441353
PMCPMC4618029

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.