Abstract: The application of incongruent sensory signals that involves disrupted tactile feedback is rarely explored, specifically with the presence of vibrotactile feedback (VTF). This protocol aims to test the effect of VTF on the response to incongruent visual-tactile stimuli. The tactile feedback is acquired by grasping a block and moving it across a partition. The visual feedback is a real-time virtual presentation of the moving block, acquired using a motion capture system. The congruent feedback is the reliable presentation of the movement of the block, so that the subject feels that the block is grasped and see it move along with the path of the hand. The incongruent feedback appears as the movement of the block diverts from the actual movement path, so that it seems to drop from the hand when it is actually still held by the subject, thereby contradicting the tactile feedback. Twenty subjects (age 30.2 +/- 16.3) repeated 16 block transfers, while their hand was hidden. These were repeated with VTF and without VTF (total of 32 block transfers). Incongruent stimuli were presented randomly twice within the 16 repetitions in each condition (with and without VTF). Each subject was asked to rate the difficulty level of performing the task with and without the VTF. There were no statistically significant differences in the length of the hand paths and durations between transfers recorded with congruent and incongruent visual-tactile signals – with and without the VTF. The perceived difficulty level of performing the task with the VTF significantly correlated with the normalized path length of the block with VTF (r = 0.675, p = 0.002). This setup is used to quantify the additive or reductive value of VTF during motor function that involves incongruent visual-tactile stimuli. Possible applications are prosthetics design, smart sport-wear, or any other garments that incorporate VTF.

Abstract: In motor learning tasks, there is mixed evidence for whether increased task-relevant variability in early learning stages leads to improved outcomes. One problem is that there may be a connection between skill level and motor variability, such that participants who initially have more variability may also perform worse on the task, so will have more room to improve. To avoid this confound, we experimentally manipulated the amount of movement timing variability (MTV) during training to test whether it improves performance. Based on previous studies showing that most of the improvement in finger-opposition tasks comes from optimizing the relative onset time of the finger movements, we used auditory cues (beeps) to guide the onset times of sequential movements during a training session, and then assessed motor performance after the intervention. Participants were assigned to three groups that either: (a) followed a prescribed random rhythm for their finger touches (Variable MTV), (b) followed a fixed rhythm (Fixed control MTV), or (c) produced the entire sequence following a single beep (Unsupervised control MTV). While the intervention was successful in increasing MTV during training for the Variable group, it did not lead to improved outcomes post-training compared to either control group, and the use of fixed timing led to significantly worse performance compared to the Unsupervised control group. These results suggest that manipulating MTV through auditory cues does not produce greater learning than unconstrained training in motor sequence tasks.

Abstract: The primary somatosensory (S1) cortex is a central structure in motor performance. However, transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) research aimed at improving motor performance usually targets the primary motor cortex (M1). Recently, sex was found to mediate tDCS response. Thus, we investigated whether tDCS with an anodal electrode placed over S1 improves motor performance and sensation perception in men versus women. Forty-five participants randomly received 15-min high-definition tDCS (HD-tDCS) at 1 mA to S1, M1, or sham stimulation. Reaching performance was tested before and immediately following stimulation. Two-point orientation discrimination (TPOD) of fingers and proprioception of a reaching movement were also tested. Although motor performance did not differ between groups, reaching reaction time improved in the M1 group men. Reaching movement time and endpoint error improved in women and men, respectively. Correct trials percentage for TPOD task was higher in the S1 compared to the M1 group in the posttest and improved only in the S1 group. Reaching movement time for the proprioception task improved, overall, and endpoint error did not change. Despite the reciprocal connections between S1 and M1, effects of active tDCS over S1 and M1 may specifically influence sensation perception and motor performance, respectively. Also, sex may mediate effects of HD-tDCS on motor performance.