Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29779050›Full record

ArticleExperimental brain research2018

Proprioceptive loss and the perception, control and learning of arm movements in humans: evidence from sensory neuronopathy.

R Chris Miall, Nick M Kitchen, Se-Ho Nam, Hannah Lefumat, Alix G Renault, Kristin Ørstavik, Jonathan D Cole, Fabrice R Sarlegna

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Experimental brain research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 92 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Vision Fine-Tunes Predictions of Bimanual Self-Touch.The European journal of neuroscience · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  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 · 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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.

R Chris MiallSchool of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK. r.c.miall@bham.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3002-1251
Nick M KitchenSchool of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.
Se-Ho NamSchool of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.
Hannah LefumatDepartment of Neuroscience, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA.
Alix G RenaultAix Marseille Univ, CNRS, ISM, Marseille, France.
Kristin ØrstavikDepartment of Neurology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Jonathan D ColeCentre of Postgraduate Research and Education, Bournemouth University, Bournemouth, UK.
Fabrice R SarlegnaAix Marseille Univ, CNRS, ISM, Marseille, France.
University of Birmingham · GBCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique · FRBournemouth University · GBOslo University Hospital · NOUniversity of Pennsylvania · US

Funding

CNRS AUTON programRoyal Society International ExchangeWellcome TrustWellcome Trust WT087554
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It is uncertain how vision and proprioception contribute to adaptation of voluntary arm movements. In normal participants, adaptation to imposed forces is possible with or without vision, suggesting that proprioception is sufficient; in participants with proprioceptive loss (PL), adaptation is possible with visual feedback, suggesting that proprioception is unnecessary. In experiment 1 adaptation to, and retention of, perturbing forces were evaluated in three chronically deafferented participants. They made rapid reaching movements to move a cursor toward a visual target, and a planar robot arm applied orthogonal velocity-dependent forces. Trial-by-trial error correction was observed in all participants. Such adaptation has been characterized with a dual-rate model: a fast process that learns quickly, but retains poorly and a slow process that learns slowly and retains well. Experiment 2 showed that the PL participants had large individual differences in learning and retention rates compared to normal controls. Experiment 3 tested participants' perception of applied forces. With visual feedback, the PL participants could report the perturbation's direction as well as controls; without visual feedback, thresholds were elevated. Experiment 4 showed, in healthy participants, that force direction could be estimated from head motion, at levels close to the no-vision threshold for the PL participants. Our results show that proprioceptive loss influences perception, motor control and adaptation but that proprioception from the moving limb is not essential for adaptation to, or detection of, force fields. The differences in learning and retention seen between the three deafferented participants suggest that they achieve these tasks in idiosyncratic ways after proprioceptive loss, possibly integrating visual and vestibular information with individual cognitive strategies.

Indexed as

Adaptation, PhysiologicalAgedArmFemaleHumansLearningMaleMiddle AgedMovementPeripheral Nervous System DiseasesPhotic StimulationProprioceptionPsychomotor PerformanceSensation DisordersVision, OcularVisual PerceptionAdaptationDeafferentationForce-field adaptationHuman movementLimb dynamicsNeuronopathyProprioceptionSensorimotorVision

Identifiers

PMID29779050
PMCPMC6061502
OpenAlexW2803591754

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.