Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37584684›Full record

ArticleExperimental brain research2023

Effect of visuo-proprioceptive mismatch rate on recalibration in hand perception.

Reshma Babu, Trevor Lee-Miller, Manasi Wali, Hannah J Block

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Experimental brain research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Sensorimotor confidence during explicit motor adaptation.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Expanding the framework of proprioception: a comment on Héroux et al.Journal of applied physiology (Bethesda, Md. : 1985) · 2024
    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

4 authors.

Reshma BabuDepartment of Kinesiology, School of Public Health, Indiana University Bloomington, 1025 E. 7th St., PH 112, Bloomington, IN, 47405, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0847-4214
Trevor Lee-MillerDepartment of Kinesiology, School of Public Health, Indiana University Bloomington, 1025 E. 7th St., PH 112, Bloomington, IN, 47405, USA.
Manasi WaliDepartment of Kinesiology, School of Public Health, Indiana University Bloomington, 1025 E. 7th St., PH 112, Bloomington, IN, 47405, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0303-2529
Hannah J BlockDepartment of Kinesiology, School of Public Health, Indiana University Bloomington, 1025 E. 7th St., PH 112, Bloomington, IN, 47405, USA. hjblock@indiana.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1561-2718

Funding

Neural basis of sensory and motor learningR01NS112367 · NINDS · TRUSTEES OF INDIANA UNIVERSITY · PI BLOCK, HANNAH JUSTINE · 2020 to 2024
$1.8M
NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS112367
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We estimate our hand's position by combining relevant visual and proprioceptive cues. A cross-sensory spatial mismatch can be created by viewing the hand through a prism or, more recently, rotating a visual cursor that represents hand position. This is often done in the context of target-directed reaching to study motor adaptation, the systematic updating of motor commands in response to a systematic movement error. However, a visuo-proprioceptive mismatch also elicits recalibration in the relationship between the hand's seen and felt position. The principles governing visuo-proprioceptive recalibration are poorly understood, compared to motor adaptation. For example, motor adaptation occurs robustly whether the cursor is rotated quickly or slowly, although the former may involve more explicit processes. Here, we asked whether visuo-proprioceptive recalibration, in the absence of motor adaptation, works the same way. Three groups experienced a 70 mm visuo-proprioceptive mismatch about their hand at a Slow, Medium, or Fast rate (0.84, 1.67, or 3.34 mm every two trials, respectively), with no error feedback. Once attained, the 70 mm mismatch was maintained for the remaining trials. Total recalibration differed significantly across groups, with the Fast, Medium, and Slow groups recalibrating 63.7, 56.3, and 42.8 mm on average, respectively. This suggests a slower mismatch rate may be less effective at eliciting recalibration. In contrast to motor adaptation studies, no further recalibration was observed in the maintenance phase. This may be related to the distinct mechanisms thought to contribute to perceptual recalibration via cross-sensory cue conflict versus sensory prediction errors.

Indexed as

Feedback, SensoryPsychomotor PerformanceAdaptation, PhysiologicalHandHumansPerceptionProprioceptionVisual PerceptionHandMultisensoryProprioceptionRecalibration

Identifiers

PMID37584684
PMCPMC11017161

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.