Reach adaptation to online target error.
Magescas et al. (Exp Brain Res 193:337-350, 2009) recently suggested that online error, unlike terminal error, does not lead to reach adaptation. The present study re-examines adaptation to online target error, but uses a small target perturbation and eliminates online vision of the limb, factors that may affect adaptation. We compared 3 groups: terminal error, online error, and control. All groups completed a pretest, exposure, and posttest phase. Participants made look-and-point movements to a target, and we examined how repeated rightward target perturbations during the exposure phases of the experimental groups influenced reaches to a stationary target in the posttest. Exposure phases of each group contained an equal number of interleaved look-and-point and look-only trials, the latter of which were designed to inhibit build-up of saccadic adaptation in the online error group. On look-and-point trials the target either disappeared at saccade onset and then re-appeared 3.75 cm to the right when the hand landed (terminal error group), immediately jumped right by 3.75 cm at saccade onset and remained lit throughout the saccade and reach (online error group), or remained lit but stationary throughout the saccade and reach (control group). In all groups, vision of the limb was only provided at the start and end of the reach. Our results show that both the terminal error and the online error groups developed significant aftereffects. It appears, therefore, that online error can produce reach adaptation.
School of Human Kinetics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T1Z1, Canada.
Brendan D
BD
Cameron
Ian M
IM
Franks
J
J
Timothy Inglis
Romeo
R
Chua
D000222:Adaptation, Physiological / Q000502:physiology*; D000328:Adult; D005260:Female; D005403:Fixation, Ocular / Q000502:physiology; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D009068:Movement / Q000502:physiology; D010775:Photic Stimulation; D011597:Psychomotor Performance / Q000502:physiology*; D012438:Saccades / Q000502:physiology*
Exp Brain Res. 1999 Apr;125(4):410-6
10323286
Trends Cogn Sci. 2000 Nov 1;4(11):423-431
11058820
Nat Neurosci. 1999 Jun;2(6):563-7
10448222
J Neurophysiol. 2003 Nov;90(5):3105-18
14615428
Vision Res. 2000;40(20):2779-96
10960651
J Neurophysiol. 1992 Feb;67(2):455-69
1569469
Motor Control. 2005 Jul;9(3):281-311
16239717
Exp Brain Res. 2010 Jun;203(2):367-80
20383763
Exp Brain Res. 2009 Mar;193(3):337-50
19011846
J Neurosci. 2005 Oct 26;25(43):9919-31
16251440
Exp Brain Res. 2010 May;203(1):75-87
20237773
Exp Brain Res. 1999 Feb;124(3):351-62
9989441
Vision Res. 1975 Jun;15(6):719-22
1138489
Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 2002 Feb;13(1):41-52
11867249
Exp Brain Res. 2010 Mar;201(2):191-207
19830412
J Neurophysiol. 2009 Feb;101(2):655-64
19019979
J Mot Behav. 1993 Dec;25(4):299-308
15064196
Nature. 1986 Apr 24-30;320(6064):748-50
3703000
J Neurophysiol. 2007 Aug;98(2):602-12
17553949
J Cogn Neurosci. 2006 Jan;18(1):75-83
16417684
Exp Brain Res. 1982;47(3):417-27
7128709
J Neurophysiol. 2007 Jul;98(1):54-62
17507504
Exp Brain Res. 1989;78(3):575-87
2612600
Prog Neurobiol. 2004 Jan;72(1):27-53
15019175