Abstract: We are frequently changing the position of our bodies and body parts within complex environments. How does the brain keep track of one’s own body? Current models of body ownership state that visual body ownership cues such as viewed object form and orientation are combined with multisensory information to correctly identify one’s own body, estimate its current location and evoke an experience of body ownership. Within this framework, it may be possible that the brain relies on a separate perceptual analysis of body ownership cues (e.g. form, orientation, multisensory synchrony). Alternatively, these cues may interact in earlier stages of perceptual processing—visually derived body form and orientation cues may, for example, directly modulate temporal synchrony perception. The aim of the present study was to distinguish between these two alternatives. We employed a virtual hand set-up and psychophysical methods. In a two-interval force-choice task, participants were asked to detect temporal delays between executed index finger movements and observed movements. We found that body-specifying cues interact in perceptual processing. Specifically, we show that plausible visual information (both form and orientation) for one’s own body led to significantly better detection performance for small multisensory asynchronies compared to implausible visual information. We suggest that this perceptual modulation when visual information plausible for one’s own body is present is a consequence of body-specific sensory predictions.

Abstract: We investigated whether adding vibrotactile feedback to a myoelectric-controlled hand, when visual feedback is disturbed, can improve performance during a functional test. For this purpose, able-bodied subjects, activating a myoelectric-controlled hand attached to their right hand performed the modified Box & Blocks test, grasping and manipulating wooden blocks over a partition. This was performed in 3 conditions, using a repeated-measures design: in full light, in a dark room where visual feedback was disturbed and no auditory feedback – one time with the addition of tactile feedback provided during object grasping and manipulation, and one time without any tactile feedback. The average time needed to transfer one block was measured, and an infrared camera was used to give information on the number of grasping errors during performance of the test. Our results show that when vibrotactile feedback was provided, performance time was reduced significantly, compared with when no vibrotactile feedback was available. Furthermore, the accuracy of grasping and manipulation was improved, reflected by significantly fewer errors during test performance. In conclusion, adding vibrotactile feedback to a myoelectric-controlled hand has positive effects on functional performance when visual feedback is disturbed. This may have applications to current myoelectric-controlled hands, as adding tactile feedback may help prosthesis users to improve their functional ability during daily life activities in different environments, particularly when limited visual feedback is available or desirable.

Abstract: We tested how observation of a skilled pattern of planar movements can assist in the learning of a new motor skill, which otherwise requires rigorous long-term practice to achieve fast and smooth performance. Sixty participants performed a sequence of planar hand movements on pre-test, acquisition, post-test and 24 h post-training blocks, under 1 of 4 conditions: an observation group (OG), a slowed observation group (SOG), a random motion control group (RMCG) and a double physical training control group (DPTCG). The OG and SOG observed an expert model's right hand performing the study task intermittently throughout acquisition, RMCG observed random dots movement instead of a model. Participants in the DPTCG received extra physical practice trials instead of the visually observed trials. Kinematic analysis revealed that only in conditions with observation of an expert model there was an instant robust improvement in motor planning of the task. This step-wise improvement was not only persistent in post-training retests but was also apparently implicit and subject to further incremental improvements in movement strategy over the period of 24 hours. The rapid change in motor strategy was accompanied by a transient within-session increase in spatial error for the observation groups, but this went away by 24 h post-training. We suggest that observation of hand movements of an expert model coaligned with self-produced movements during training can significantly condense the time-course of ecologically relevant drawing/writing skill mastery.