title: Visuo-motor gain adaptation and generalization following left hemisphere stroke.
abstract: During gain adaptation, participants must learn to adapt to novel visuo-motor mappings in which the movement amplitudes they produce do not match the visual feedback they receive. The aim of the present study was to investigate the neural substrates of gain adaptation by examining its possible disruption following left hemisphere stroke. Thirteen chronic left hemisphere stroke patients and five healthy right-handed control subjects completed three experimental phases involving reaching with the left hand, which was the less-affected hand in patients. First, participants reached without visual feedback to six different target locations (baseline phase). Next, in the adaptation phase, participants executed movements to one target under conditions in which the perceived movement distance was 70% of the produced movement distance. Last, in order to test the generalization of this new visuomotor mapping, participants made movements without visual feedback to untrained target locations (generalization phase). Significant between-patient differences were observed during adaptation. Lesion analyses indicated that these between-patient differences were predicted by the amount of damage to the supramarginal gyrus (Brodmann area 40). In addition, patients performed more poorly than controls in the generalization phase, suggesting that different processes are involved in adaptation and generalization periods.
authors: Laboratory of Psychology and NeuroCogntion, Grenoble, France. richard.palluel@upmf-grenoble.fr
authors: Richard
authors: R
authors: Palluel-Germain
authors: Steven A
authors: SA
authors: Jax
authors: Laurel J
authors: LJ
authors: Buxbaum
references: Neuropsychologia. 2005;43(6):917-29
references: 15716162
references: Brain Res. 2009 Nov 17;1298:78-91
references: 19728993
references: Exp Brain Res. 2007 May;179(3):457-74
references: 17146644
references: Brain. 2010 Nov;133(11):3269-80
references: 20805101
references: Behav Brain Res. 1992 Oct 31;51(1):41-50
references: 1482544
references: J Neurosci. 2000 Dec 1;20(23):8916-24
references: 11102502
references: Neuroscience. 2006 Jul 21;140(4):1209-21
references: 16675134
references: Exp Brain Res. 2008 Feb;185(2):227-36
references: 17957363
references: Brain Res. 2000 Jul 14;871(1):127-45
references: 10882792
references: J Neurosci. 2005 Oct 26;25(43):9919-31
references: 16251440
references: J Neurophysiol. 2004 Feb;91(2):924-33
references: 14523069
references: Exp Brain Res. 2006 Nov;175(3):544-55
references: 16794848
references: J Neurophysiol. 2008 Apr;99(4):1836-45
references: 18272874
references: Conscious Cogn. 2010 Dec;19(4):906-17
references: 20537562
references: Nat Neurosci. 2003 May;6(5):448-50
references: 12704393
references: Brain. 2000 Nov;123 ( Pt 11):2306-13
references: 11050030
references: Nat Rev Neurosci. 2004 Oct;5(10):813-9
references: 15378041
references: Exp Brain Res. 2008 Mar;185(3):359-81
references: 18251019
references: Exp Brain Res. 2000 May;132(1):114-26
references: 10836641
references: Exp Brain Res. 2008 Feb;185(1):101-10
references: 17912505
references: Brain Res. 2008 Mar 4;1197:123-34
references: 18241844
references: Neurocase. 2001;7(6):445-58
references: 11788737
references: Neurosci Lett. 2005 Sep 23;386(1):52-7
references: 15982810
references: Exp Brain Res. 2002 Dec;147(3):280-95
references: 12428136
references: J Neurophysiol. 2007 Jul;98(1):54-62
references: 17507504