Crossmodal representation of a functional robotic hand arises after extensive training in healthy participants

Neuropsychologia

Volumn 53, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 178-186

  Marini, Francesco ^a   Tagliabue, Chiara F ^a   Sposito, Ambra V ^a   Hernandez Arieta, Alejandro ^b   Brugger, Peter ^c,d   Estévez, Natalia ^e   Maravita, Angelo ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MILANO BICOCCA   (Italy)

^b Noser Engineering AG   (Switzerland)

^c UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^d UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^e UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Crossmodal interactions; Peripersonal space; Plasticity; Prosthesis; Visuo tactile interference; Visuomotor control

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; BRAIN FUNCTION; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; HAND MOVEMENT; HAND PROSTHESIS; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; NERVE CELL PLASTICITY; NEUROMODULATION; NORMAL HUMAN; ROBOTICS; SENSORY FEEDBACK; SOMATOSENSORY STIMULATION; SOMATOSENSORY SYSTEM; TRAINING; TRANSCUTANEOUS NERVE STIMULATION; VISUAL STIMULATION; VISUOMOTOR COORDINATION;

CROSSMODAL INTERACTIONS; PERIPERSONAL SPACE; PLASTICITY; PROSTHESIS; VISUO-TACTILE INTERFERENCE; VISUOMOTOR CONTROL;

ADULT; ARTIFICIAL LIMBS; BODY IMAGE; FEMALE; HAND; HUMANS; LEARNING; MALE; MOTOR SKILLS; PHYSICAL STIMULATION; PRACTICE (PSYCHOLOGY); ROBOTICS; SPACE PERCEPTION; TIME FACTORS; TOUCH PERCEPTION; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 84890107173     PISSN: 00283932     EISSN: 18733514     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.11.017     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Berlucchi G., Aglioti S.M. The body in the brain: Neural bases of corporeal awareness. Trends in Neurosciences 1997, 20:560-564.
2. Berlucchi G., Aglioti S.M. The body in the brain revisited. Experimental Brain Research 2010, 200(1):25-35.
3. Botvinick M., Cohen J. Rubber hands 'feel' touch that eyes see. Nature 1998, 391(6669):756.
4. Cardinali L., Brozzoli C., Farnè A. Peripersonal space and body schema: Two labels for the same concept?. Brain Topography 2009, 21:252-260.
5. deVignemont F. Habeas Corpus: The sense of ownership of one's own body. Mind & Language 2007, 22(4):427-449.
6. Driver J., Spence C. Attention and the crossmodal construction of space. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 1998, 2(7):254-262.
7. Ehrsson H.H., Holmes N.P., Passingham R.E. Touching a rubber hand: Feeling of body ownership is associated with activity in multisensory brain areas. The Journal of Neuroscience 2005, 25:10564-10573.
8. Ehrsson H.H., Spence C., Passingham R.E. That's my hand! Activity in premotor cortex reflects feeling of ownership of a limb. Science 2004, 305:875-877.
9. Ehrsson H.H., Wiech K., Weiskopf N., Dolan R.J., Passingham R.E. Threatening a rubber hand that you feel is yours elicits a cortical anxiety response. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2007, 104:9828-9833.
10. Ehrsson H.H., Rose B., Stockselius A., Ragno C., Kohler P., Lundborg G. Upper limb amputees can be induced to experience a rubber hand as their own. Brain 2008, 131:3443-3452.
11. Eriksen B.A., Eriksen C.W. Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception & Psychophysics 1974, 16(1):143-149.
12. Farnè A., Bonifazi S., Làdavas E. The role played by tool-use and tool-length on the plastic elongation of peri-hand space: A single case study. Cognitive Neuropsychology 2005, 22(3):408-418.
13. Farnè A., Demattè M.L., Làdavas E. Neuropsychological evidence of modular organization of the near peripersonal space. Neurology 2005, 65(11):1754-1758.
14. Fogassi L., Gallese V., Fadiga L., Luppino G., Matelli M., Rizzolatti G. Coding of peripersonal space in inferior premotor cortex (area F4). Journal of Neurophysiology 1996, 76:141-157.
15. Forster B., Pavone E.F. Electrophysiological correlates of crossmodal visual distracter congruency effects: evidence for response conflict. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience 2008, 8:65-74.
16. Fraser C.M. An evaluation of the use made of cosmetic and functional prostheses by unilateral upper limb amputees. Prosthetics and Orthotics International 1998, 22:216-223.
17. Gallace A., Soto-Faraco S., Dalton P., Kreukniet B., Spence C. Response requirements modulate tactile spatial congruency effects. Experimental Brain Research 2008, 191:171-186.
18. Gold N.B., Westgate M.N., Holmes L.B. Anatomic and etiological classification of congenital limb deficiencies. American Journal of Medical Genetics. Part A 2011, 155A:1225-1235.
19. Graziano M.S. Where is my arm? The relative role of vision and proprioception in the neuronal representation of limb position. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 1999, 96:10418-10421.
20. Graziano M.S., Yap G.S., Gross C.G. Coding of visual space by premotor neurons. Science 1994, 266(5187):1054-1057.
21. Hernandez-Arieta A., Kato R., Yokoi H., Wenwei Y. Development of a multi-DOF electromyography prosthetic system using the adaptive joint mechanism. Applied Bionics and Biomechanics 2006, 3(2):101-111.
22. Hernandez Arieta, A., Yu, W., Yokoi, H., & Arai, A. (2006). fMRI study of the cross-modal interaction in the brain with an adaptable EMG prosthetic hand with biofeedback. In Proceedings of the 28th annual international conference of IEEE engineering in medicine and biology society (pp. 1280-1284).
23. Hernandez-Arieta, A., Dermitzakis, K., Damian, D., Lungarella, M., & Pfeifer, R. (2008). Sensory-motor coupling in rehabilitation robotics. In Yoshihiko Takahashi (Ed.), Service robot applications (pp. 21-36). Rijeka, Croatia: InTech.
24. Heed T., Habets B., Sebanz N., Knoblich G. Others' actions reduce crossmodal integration in peripersonal space. Current Biology 2010, 20:1345-1349.
25. Holmes N.P., Sanabria D., Spence C., Calvert G.A. Multisensory interactions follow the hands across the midline: Evidence from a non-spatial visual-tactile congruency task. Brain Research 2006, 1077(1):108-115.
26. Iriki A., Tanaka M., Iwamura Y. Coding of modified body schema during tool use by macaque postcentral neurons. Neuroreport 1996, 7(14):2325-2330.
27. Johnson-Frey, S. H. (2003). Cortical representations of human tool use. In: S. H.Johnson-Frey (Ed.), Taking action: Cognitive neuroscience perspectives on intentional acts (pp. 185-220). Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.
28. Kuiken T. Targeted reinnervation for improved prosthetic function. Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Clinics of North America 2006, 17(1):1-13.
29. Kuiken T.A., Dumanian G.A., Lipschutz R.D., Miller L.A., Stubblefield K.A. The use of targeted muscle reinnervation for improved myoelectric prosthesis control in a bilateral shoulder disarticulation amputee. Prosthetics and Orthotics International 2004, 28(3):245-253.
30. Kuiken T.A., Li G., Lock B.A., Lipschutz R.D., Miller L.A., Stubblefield K.A., et al. Targeted muscle reinnervation for real-time myoelectric control of multifunction artificial arms. Journal American Medical Association 2009, 301(6):619-628.
31. Kuiken T.A., Marasco P.D., Lock B.A., Harden R.N., Dewald J.P. Redirection of cutaneous sensation from the hand to the chest skin of human amputees with targeted reinnervation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2007, 104(50):20061-20066.
32. Làdavas E., Farnè A. Visuo-tactile representation of near-the-body space. Journal of Physiology - Paris 2004, 98(1-3):161-170.
33. Lloyd D.M. Spatial limits on referred touch to an alien limb may reflect boundaries of visuo-tactile peripersonal space surrounding the hand. Brain and Cognition 2007, 64:104-109.
34. Lundborg G., Rosen B. Sensory substitution in prosthetics. Hand Clinics 2001, 17(3):481-488. (ix-x).
35. Macaluso E., Driver J. Spatial attention and crossmodal interactions between vision and touch. Neuropsychologia 2001, 39(12):1304-1316.
36. Macaluso E., Frith C.D., Driver J. Supramodal effects of covert spatial orienting triggered by visual or tactile events. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2002, 14(3):215-229.
37. Macaluso E., Maravita A. The representation of space near the body through touch and vision. Neuropsychologia 2010, 48(3):782-795.
38. Makin T.R., Holmes N.P., Ehrsson H.H. On the other hand: Dummy hands and peripersonal space. Behavioural Brain Research 2008, 191:1-10.
39. Makin T.R., Holmes N.P., Zohary E. Is that near my hand? Multisensory representation of peripersonal space in human intraparietal sulcus. The Journal of Neuroscience 2007, 27:731-740.
40. Marasco P.D., Kim K., Colgate J.E., Peshkin M.A., Kuiken T.A. Robotic touch shifts perception of embodiment to a prosthesis in targeted reinnervation amputees. Brain 2011, 134(3):747-758.
41. Marasco P.D., Schultz A.E., Kuiken T.A. Sensory capacity of reinnervated skin after redirection of amputated upper limb nerves to the chest. Brain 2009, 132:1441-1448.
42. Maravita A., Iriki A. Tools for the body (schema). Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2004, 8(2):79-86.
43. Maravita A., Spence C., Kennett S., Driver J. Tool-use changes multimodal spatial interactions between vision and touch in normal humans. Cognition 2002, 83(2):B25-B34.
44. Marini F., Chelazzi L., Maravita A. The costly filtering of potential distraction: Evidence for a supramodal mechanism. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 2013, 142(3):906-922.
45. Micera, S. February 14-18 (2013). Controlling a prosthetic hand with peripheral neural interfaces. In Abstract presented at American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) annual meeting. Boston. Available at: http://aaas.confex.com/aaas/2013/webprogram/Paper8599.html.
46. Mulvey M.R., Fawkner H.J., Radford H., Johnson M.I. The use of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) to aid perceptual embodiment of prosthetic limbs. Medical Hypotheses 2008, 72(2):140-142.
47. Murray C.D. An interpretative phenomenological analysis of the embodiment of artificial limbs. Disability and Rehabilitation 2004, 26(16):963-973.
48. Nakamura, T., Kita, K., Kato, R., Matsushita, K., & Hiroshi, Y. (2009). Control strategy for a myoelectric hand: Measuring acceptable time delay in human intention discrimination. In Annual international conference of the IEEE engineering in medicine and biology society (pp. 5044-5047).
49. Pavani F., Spence C., Driver J. Visual capture of touch: Out-of-the-body experiences with rubber gloves. Psychological Science 2000, 11:353-359.
50. Scarry E. The merging of bodies and artifacts in the social contract. Culture on the brink: Ideologies of technology 1994, 85-97. Seattle, Bay Press. G. Bender, T. Druckery (Eds.).
51. Shore D.I., Barnes M.E., Spence C. Temporal aspects of the visuo-tactile congruency effect. Neuroscience Letters 2006, 392:96-100.
52. Spence C., Pavani F., Driver J. Spatial constraints on visual-tactile crossmodal distracter congruency effects. Cognitive, Affective and Behavioral Neuroscience 2004, 4(2):148-169.
53. Spence C., Pavani F., Maravita A., Holmes N. Multisensory contributions to the 3-D representation of visuo-tactile peripersonal space in humans: Evidence from the crossmodal congruency task. Journal of Physiology - Paris 2004, 98(1-3):171-189.
54. Townsend J.T., Ashby F.G. Stochastic modeling of elementary psychological processes 1983, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
55. Van Elk M., Blanke O. Manipulable objects facilitate cross-modal integration in peripersonal space. PLoS One 2011, 6(9):e24641.
56. Walton M., Spence C. Cross-modal congruency and visual capture in a visual elevation-discrimination task. Experimental Brain Research 2004, 154(1):113-120.
57. World Medical Organization Declaration of Helsinki. British Medical Journal 1996, 313(7070):1448-1449.
58. Zopf R., Savage G., Williams M.A. Crossmodal congruency measures of lateral distance effects on the rubber hand illusion. Neuropsychologia 2010, 48:713-725.