Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27535908›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience2016

Dynamic Multisensory Integration: Somatosensory Speed Trumps Visual Accuracy during Feedback Control.

Frédéric Crevecoeur, Douglas P Munoz, Stephen H Scott

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 64 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
64citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

64 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Tactile Detection in Fibromyalgia: A Systematic Review and a Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

4 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Frédéric CrevecoeurInstitute of Communication Technologies, Electronics and Applied Mathematics, and Institute of Neuroscience, Université catholique de Louvain, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, and Centre for Neuroscience Studies and.ORCID 0000-0002-1147-1153
Douglas P MunozCentre for Neuroscience Studies and Department of Biomedical and Molecular Sciences, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada K7L3N6.
Stephen H ScottCentre for Neuroscience Studies and Department of Biomedical and Molecular Sciences, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada K7L3N6 steve.scott@queensu.ca.

Funding

CIHR 201102MFE-246249-210313
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

unlabelledRecent advances in movement neuroscience have consistently highlighted that the nervous system performs sophisticated feedback control over very short time scales (<100 ms for upper limb). These observations raise the important question of how the nervous system processes multiple sources of sensory feedback in such short time intervals, given that temporal delays across sensory systems such as vision and proprioception differ by tens of milliseconds. Here we show that during feedback control, healthy humans use dynamic estimates of hand motion that rely almost exclusively on limb afferent feedback even when visual information about limb motion is available. We demonstrate that such reliance on the fastest sensory signal during movement is compatible with dynamic Bayesian estimation. These results suggest that the nervous system considers not only sensory variances but also temporal delays to perform optimal multisensory integration and feedback control in real-time. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: Numerous studies have demonstrated that the nervous system combines redundant sensory signals according to their reliability. Although very powerful, this model does not consider how temporal delays may impact sensory reliability, which is an important issue for feedback control because different sensory systems are affected by different temporal delays. Here we show that the brain considers not only sensory variability but also temporal delays when integrating vision and proprioception following mechanical perturbations applied to the upper limb. Compatible with dynamic Bayesian estimation, our results unravel the importance of proprioception for feedback control as a consequence of the shorter temporal delays associated with this sensory modality.

Indexed as

AdultAnalysis of VarianceBayes TheoremFeedback, SensoryFemaleHandHumansMaleModels, BiologicalMovementProprioceptionReaction TimeReproducibility of ResultsTime FactorsVision, OcularYoung Adultdecision makingmotor controlmultisensory integrationstate estimation

Identifiers

PMID27535908
PMCPMC6601898

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.