Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39252006›Full record

ArticleJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2024

Optimality of multisensory integration while compensating for uncertain visual target information with artificial vibrotactile cues during reach planning.

Lukas K Amann, Virginia Casasnovas, Jannis Hainke, Alexander Gail

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Vision Fine-Tunes Predictions of Bimanual Self-Touch.The European journal of neuroscience · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. 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.

Lukas K AmannFaculty of Biology and Psychology, Georg-August University, Goßlerstr. 14, 37073, Göttingen, Germany.
Virginia CasasnovasFaculty of Biology and Psychology, Georg-August University, Goßlerstr. 14, 37073, Göttingen, Germany.
Jannis HainkeFaculty of Biology and Psychology, Georg-August University, Goßlerstr. 14, 37073, Göttingen, Germany.
Alexander GailFaculty of Biology and Psychology, Georg-August University, Goßlerstr. 14, 37073, Göttingen, Germany. agail@gwdg.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPlanning and executing movements requires the integration of different sensory modalities, such as vision and proprioception. However, neurological diseases like stroke can lead to full or partial loss of proprioception, resulting in impaired movements. Recent advances focused on providing additional sensory feedback to patients to compensate for the sensory loss, proving vibrotactile stimulation to be a viable option as it is inexpensive and easy to implement. Here, we test how such vibrotactile information can be integrated with visual signals to estimate the spatial location of a reach target.

methodsWe used a center-out reach paradigm with 31 healthy human participants to investigate how artificial vibrotactile stimulation can be integrated with visual-spatial cues indicating target location. Specifically, we provided multisite vibrotactile stimulation to the moving dominant arm using eccentric rotating mass (ERM) motors. As the integration of inputs across multiple sensory modalities becomes especially relevant when one of them is uncertain, we additionally modulated the reliability of visual cues. We then compared the weighing of vibrotactile and visual inputs as a function of visual uncertainty to predictions from the maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) framework to decide if participants achieve quasi-optimal integration.

resultsOur results show that participants could estimate target locations based on vibrotactile instructions. After short training, combined visual and vibrotactile cues led to higher hit rates and reduced reach errors when visual cues were uncertain. Additionally, we observed lower reaction times in trials with low visual uncertainty when vibrotactile stimulation was present. Using MLE predictions, we found that integration of vibrotactile and visual cues followed optimal integration when vibrotactile cues required the detection of one or two active motors. However, if estimating the location of a target required discriminating the intensities of two cues, integration violated MLE predictions.

conclusionWe conclude that participants can quickly learn to integrate visual and artificial vibrotactile information. Therefore, using additional vibrotactile stimulation may serve as a promising way to improve rehabilitation or the control of prosthetic devices by patients suffering loss of proprioception.

Indexed as

CuesPsychomotor PerformanceVibrationVisual PerceptionAdultFeedback, SensoryFemaleHumansMaleMovementPhysical StimulationProprioceptionSpace PerceptionTouch PerceptionUncertaintyYoung AdultMultisensory integrationReachingSensory augmentationVibrotactile stimulation

Identifiers

PMID39252006
PMCPMC11382450

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.