Visual proprioception in the timing of movements: Evidence from deafferentation

NeuroReport

Volumn 17, Issue 5, 2006, Pages 545-548

  Stenneken, Prisca ^a,b   Prinz, Wolfgang ^a   Bosbach, Simone ^a   Aschersleben, Gisa ^a  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN COGNITIVE AND BRAIN SCIENCES   (Germany)

^b FREIE UNIVERSITÄT BERLIN   (Germany)

Author keywords

Motor control; Somatosensory deafferentation; Timing; Visual proprioception

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CASE REPORT; CONTROLLED STUDY; DEAFFERENTATION; FEEDBACK SYSTEM; FEMALE; HAND MOVEMENT; HUMAN; MALE; MOTOR CONTROL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROPRIOCEPTION; TASK PERFORMANCE; VISUAL STIMULATION;

ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; DENERVATION; FEEDBACK; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MOVEMENT; NEURONS, AFFERENT; PHOTIC STIMULATION; PROPRIOCEPTION; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; SOMATOSENSORY CORTEX; TOUCH; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 33645123891     PISSN: 09594965     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.wnr.0000209013.01470.f8     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Williams AM, Weigelt C, Harris M, Scott MA. Age-related differences in vision and proprioception in a lower, limb interceptive task: the effects of skill level and practice. Res Q Exerc Sport 2002; 73:386-395.
2. Gandevia SC, Burke DI. Does the nervous system depend on kinesthetic information to control natural limb movements? Behav Brain Sci 1992; 15:614-632.
3. McCloskey DI, Prochazka A. The role of sensory information in the guidance of voluntary movement: reflections on a symposium held at the 22nd annual meeting of the Society for Neuroscience. Somatosens Mot Res 1994; 11:69-76.
4. Gibson JJ. The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin; 1979.
5. Gallagher S, Cole J. Body schema and body image in a deafferented subject. J Mind Behav 1995; 16:369-390.
6. Lee DN, Lishman JR. Visual proprioceptive control of stance. J Hum Movement Stud 1975; 1:87-95.
7. Redding GM, Wallace B. Adaptive eye-hand coordination: implications of prism adaptation for perceptual-motor organization. In: Proteau L, Elliott D, editors. Vision and motor control. Amsterdam: North-Holland; 1992. pp. 105-127.
8. Michel C, Pisella L, Halligan PW, Luaute J, Rode G, Boisson D, Rossetti Y. Simulating unilateral neglect in normals using prism adaptation: implications for theory. Neuropsychologia 2003; 41:25-39.
9. Aschersleben G, Drewing K, Stenneken P. Temporal coordination of simple movements. Cognitive Process 2002; 3:37-60.
10. Billon M, Semjen A, Cole J, Gauthier G. The role of sensory information in the production of periodic finger-tapping sequences. Exp Brain Res 1996; 110:117-130.
11. Stenneken P, Aschersleben G, Cole J, Prinz W. Self-induced versus reactive triggering of synchronous movements. A comparative study with a deafferented patient. Psychol Res 2002; 66:40-49.
12. Stenneken P, Prinz W, Cole J, Paillard J, Aschersleben G. The effect of sensory feedback on the timing of movements: evidence from deafferented patients (submitted).
13. Aschersleben G. Effects of training on the timing of repetitive movements. In: Shohov SP, editor. Advances in psychology research. Vol. 23. Huntington: Nova Science Publishers; 2003. pp. 15-30.
14. Wolpert DM, Flanagan JR. Motor prediction. Curr Biol 2001; 11:R729-R732.
15. Ghez C, Gordon J, Ghilardi AF. Impairments of reaching movements in patients without proprioception. II. Effects of visual information on accuracy. J Neurophysiol 1995; 73:361-372.
16. Vercher J-L, Sares F, Blouin J, Bourdin C, Gauthier G. Role of sensory information in updating internal models of the effector during arm tracking. Prog Brain Res 2003; 142:203-222.