Special Issue “Prism adaptation from neural bases to rehabilitation”: ReviewDo prism and other adaptation paradigms really measure the same processes?
Introduction
Humans are remarkably able to produce a variety of accurate motor behaviors despite constantly changing demands. This capacity includes the ability to modify a known behavior to face new conditions (for example, reaching underwater, through magnifying glasses or under a reduced gravitational field). It also includes the ability to acquire a new motor behavior (for example riding a bicycle). A much-debated question in neurosciences research is to identify the processes that encompass this capacity of plasticity.
Recently, several reviews have focused on the classification of these adaptive processes using various terms to describe them, such as sensorimotor learning, motor adaptation (Bastian, 2008, Kitago and Krakauer, 2013, Krakauer and Mazzoni, 2011), motor learning (Bastian, 2008, Kitago and Krakauer, 2013), skill learning (Kitago and Krakauer, 2013, Makino et al., 2016), skill acquisition (Kitago & Krakauer, 2013), sensory perceptual learning (Bedford, 1993, Makino et al., 2016), sensorimotor associative learning (Makino et al., 2016), etc.
Despite the use of varying definitions and terms, these reviews share a couple of key features and refer to two main notions: “adaptation” and “learning”. Unfortunately, these terms are often used interchangeably and without precision. However, several attempts of definitions have been proposed. For Bastian (2008), “adaptation” broadly refers to the modification of a pre-existing pattern in response to altered conditions. “Learning” is the acquisition of a new motor program or skill. In addition, Bastian suggests that “adaptation” must imply “after-effects”. This means that participants cannot retrieve their prior behavior once adapted, unless they de-adapt. On the other hand, “learning” is associated with the possibility to store the new movement pattern, so it becomes immediately available in the appropriate context. These characteristics may imply differences concerning the context specificity of elicited transformations. In fact, as an adjustment of the sensorimotor system to new conditions, the consequences of adaptation should apply to different movements performed by the subject. Thus, it would not be limited to the target and conditions that were practiced during exposure to the perturbation, but should extend across space (Bedford, 1993, Redding et al., 2005, Torres-Oviedo and Bastian, 2012). Conversely, learning would be highly contextual. As such, learning would not extend to other types of action toward the environment or to other experimental conditions, as long as these conditions are completely different from those experienced during the learning session (e.g., learning to smash in tennis should not interfere with the ability of riding a bicycle) (Wolpert & Flanagan, 2010). Obviously, adaptation may also be context-dependent and learning a skill such as riding a bicycle is known to generalize to other types of bicycles (Braun, Aertsen, Wolpert, & Mehring, 2009). Thus, the classification between adaptation and learning might be confusing.
Generalization properties appear to be particularly interesting and meaningful in order to question the processes involved during adaptation paradigms. In fact, patterns of generalization provide clues about the nature of representational transformations set up by the nervous system to face a given perturbation (Poggio and Bizzi, 2004, Taylor and Ivry, 2012). Additionally, the possibility to transfer compensations acquired to other conditions might be useful in the field of neurorehabilitation. Therapists aim to design strategies that allow patients to reinvest compensations acquired during rehabilitation in other daily life situations. As such, disentangling the processes through their context-dependency should be of great practical interest. Taylor and Ivry (2012) defined the context by the layout of the target locations. More globally, the context could refer to the whole characteristics of the task performed by the subject during behavioral transformations. It therefore comprises environmental characteristics (e.g., layout of the targets locations, apparatus and settings, instructions) but also individual characteristics (e.g., postural configuration, effectors). As such, a context-dependent process implies transformations that are specific to the context in which they emerged (i.e., the perturbation/exposure context). Conversely, a context-independent process entails compensations that are transferable to other conditions, beyond the exposure context.
The oldest paradigm used to explore sensorimotor plasticity is the use of prism goggles to laterally shift the visual field (Helmholtz von, 1962, Helmoltz von, 1867). When a subject wearing prisms points quickly to a near object, he/she initially points to the prism-displaced image of the object, experiencing a pointing error. After tens of pointing attempts, the pointing error is gradually reduced close to zero. This experiment simply depicts the short-term plasticity of the central nervous system (CNS), which allows to adapt to changes in the relationships between visual inputs and corresponding motor outputs (for a review, see Redding et al., 2005).
Numerous other “adaptation” paradigms have been used to investigate the compensations set up in response to altered conditions. Among them, dynamical perturbations (either contactless Coriolis forces or force-field) and visuomotor rotation paradigms are the most commonly used. In contactless Coriolis force-field experiments, participants are required to perform reaching movements while sitting on a rotating chair (Coello et al., 1996, Lackner and Dizio, 1994, Lackner and DiZio, 2002). In force-field experiments, a manipulandum produces dynamic forces on the hand while subjects are performing reaching movement toward visual targets with this robotic arm (Shadmehr & Mussa-Ivaldi, 1994). In the case of visuomotor rotations, subjects’ index finger position is coupled with the position of a cursor on a screen while they are asked to perform reaching movement. The relationship between the hand position and the cursor position is then perturbed by imposing a clockwise or anti-clockwise rotation of the moving hand visual reafference (Krakauer et al., 2000, Krakauer, 2009, Prablanc et al., 1975).
In most contact force-field and visuomotor rotation paradigms, a critical feature is the subject's knowledge of a physical interacting interface (the manipulandum and its tactile feedback) between motor planning and endpoint visual representation. Moreover, in visuomotor rotation, the actual feedback is usually not a direct view of the hand position, but a virtual cursor image of the hand displayed on a screen. Conversely, contactless Coriolis force-field or prism paradigms are related to a contactless discrepancy between motor planning and visual reafference. Then, feedback is directly perceived.
Another methodological question deserves particular consideration concerning contact force-field and visuomotor rotation paradigms: how would the after-effects change if the contact with the manipulandum was suppressed while keeping the same structure of the adapted/learned movement? A few studies have considered this crucial question (Cothros et al., 2006, Kluzik et al., 2008) and concluded that most of the aftereffect, when present, resulted from the adaptation/learning of the interface properties rather than from the adaptation/learning of the subject's own sensorimotor system. By contrast, in prism adaptation, the after-effect's strength is the same when the prisms are removed or are replaced by null deviation sham prisms. In addition, the different paradigms are associated with various generalization properties. This could underlie the contribution of different processes.
Comparison of methodological aspects between “adaptation” paradigms may highlight the fact that adaptive processes actually involved are closely linked to the paradigm used. Through a comprehensive comparison between prisms and other adaptation paradigms, the scope of this review is to identify the contributions of context-dependent versus context-independent processes during these experiments. Particularly, we will focus on three methodological points associated with specific behavioral findings: application of the perturbation, conditions in which after-effects are tested, and assessment of generalization properties. We will discuss how these features could emphasize the possibility that different processes are actually involved. To achieve this, we will review the existing modelings of sensorimotor adaptation and the question of credit assignment. We will focus the review to four most-commonly used error-based paradigms that investigate reaching movements: prisms, Coriolis force-field, force-field and visuomotor rotations.
Section snippets
Application of the perturbation
The different “adaptation” paradigms share several common features and impose an alteration of sensorimotor coordination by perturbing one or several sensory modalities. Thus, all paradigms evoke an error signal from the discrepancy between predicted and actual sensory reafferences, so-called sensory prediction errors. They are known to trigger the error reduction process (Inoue et al., 2016, Popa et al., 2016, Shadmehr et al., 2010, Tseng et al., 2007). Noticeably, the type of perturbation
From paradigms specificity to involved processes: the role of context-dependency
So far, we have described three specific methodological differences between adaptation paradigms: application of the perturbation, assessment of after-effects, and generalization properties. The highlighted differences reflect the involvement of different processes in adaptation paradigms. In the next section, we will discuss the distinction between context-dependent versus context-independent processes with respect to the theoretical modeling of adaptation processes. Particularly, we will
Discussion and conclusion
The aim of this paper was to compare methodologies used to investigate sensorimotor plasticity processes. We focused on methods described as “adaptation” paradigms: Coriolis forces, force-field, visuomotor rotation and prismatic lenses. We compared those paradigms with respect to three specific methodological features (application of the perturbation, after-effects assessment and generalization properties). The purpose of this work was to shed light on this central issue: Do all these paradigms
Conflict of interest
All the authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Lisa Fleury: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing. Claude Prablanc: Conceptualization, Writing - review & editing. Anne-Emmanuelle Priot: Conceptualization, Writing - review & editing.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by Hospices Civils de Lyon, Inserm, CNRS, Ecole Normale Supérieure de Rennes, and Labex Cortex (Labex/idex ANR-11-LABX-0042. The authors also wish to strongly thank L. Miller for his significant help with the language and his useful comments on the manuscript.
References (139)
Learning to predict the future: The cerebellum adapts feedforward movement control
Current Opinion in Neurobiology
(2006)Keeping perception accurate
Trends in Cognitive Sciences
(1999)- et al.
Motor task variation induces structural learning
Current Biology CB
(2009) Generalization of perceptual and motor learning: A causal link with memory encoding and consolidation?
Neuroscience
(2013)- et al.
Pointing movement in an artificial perturbing inertial field: A prospective paradigm for motor control study
Neuropsychologia
(1996) - et al.
Rethinking motor learning and savings in adaptation paradigms: Model-free memory for successful actions combines with internal models
Neuron
(2011) - et al.
Dual-process decomposition in human sensorimotor adaptation
Current Opinion in Neurobiology
(2015) - et al.
Error signals in motor cortices drive adaptation in reaching
Neuron
(2016) - et al.
Rehabilitation of spatial neglect by prism adaptation: A peculiar expansion of sensorimotor after-effects to spatial cognition
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews
(2013) - et al.
Wheel-chair driving improvement following visuo-manual prism adaptation
Cortex a Journal Devoted to the Study of the Nervous System and Behavior
(2008)
Internal models for motor control and trajectory planning
Current Opinion in Neurobiology
Motor learning principles for neurorehabilitation
Handbook of Clinical Neurology
Human sensorimotor learning: Adaptation, skill, and beyond
Current Opinion in Neurobiology
Motor control and learning in altered dynamic environments
Current Opinion in Neurobiology
Kinematic features of whole-body reaching movements underwater: Neutral buoyancy effects
Neuroscience
A jointcentred model accounts for movement curvature and spatial variability
Neuroscience Letters
Circuit mechanisms of sensorimotor learning
Neuron
Forward models for physiological motor control
Neural Networks
Prism adaptation of reaching is dependent on the type of visual feedback of hand and target position
Brain Research
Kinematic markers dissociate error correction from sensorimotor realignment during prism adaptation
Neuropsychologia
Effect of weightlessness on posture and movement control during a whole body reaching task
Acta Astronautica
Partitioning the components of visuomotor adaptation to prism-altered distance
Neuropsychologia
Applications of prism adaptation: A tutorial in theory and method
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews
Estimating properties of the fast and slow adaptive processes during sensorimotor adaptation
Journal of Neurophysiology
Dynamics of dual prism adaptation: Relating novel experimental results to a minimalistic neural model
PLoS One
Adaptation to a visuomotor shift depends on the starting posture
Journal of Neurophysiology
Understanding sensorimotor adaptation and learning for rehabilitation
Current Opinion in Neurology
Constraints on learning new mappings between perceptual dimensions
Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance
Perceptual and cognitive spatial learning
Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance
Motor learning is optimally tuned to the properties of motor noise
Neuron
Estimating the sources of motor errors for adaptation and generalization
Nature Neuroscience
Bayesian approaches to sensory integration for motor control. Wiley interdisciplinary reviews
Cognitive Science
Variables affecting the intermanual transfer and decay of prism adaptation
Journal of Experimental Psychology
The effect of visuomotor adaptation on proprioceptive localization: The contributions of perceptual and motor changes
Experimental Brain Research
Adaptation of postural control to weightlessness
Experimental Brain Research
The motor system does not learn the dynamics of the arm by rote memorization of past experience
Journal of Neurophysiology
Are there distinct neural representations of object and limb dynamics?
Experimental Brain Research
Adaptation to prisms: Change in internally registered eye-position
British Journal of Psychology
Differential errors of kinesthesis produced by previous limb positions
Journal of Motor Behavior
Sensory recalibration of hand position following visuomotor adaptation
Journal of Neurophysiology
Reach adaptation and proprioceptive recalibration following exposure to misaligned sensory input
Journal of Neurophysiology
Visuomotor adaptation and proprioceptive recalibration in older adults
Experimental Brain Research
Learned dynamics of reaching movements generalize from dominant to nondominant arm
Journal of Neurophysiology
Neural correlates of reach errors
Journal of Neuroscience
Use-dependent and error-based learning of motor behaviors
The Journal of Neuroscience – the Official Journal of the Society for Neuroscience
Quantifying generalization from trial-by-trial behavior of adaptive systems that learn with basis functions: Theory and experiments in human motor control
The Journal of Neuroscience – the Official Journal of the Society for Neuroscience
Prism adaptation and aftereffect: Specifying the properties of a procedural memory system
Learning and Memory
Motor learning by field approximation
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Sensorimotor adaptation of point-to-point arm movements after spaceflight: The role of internal representation of gravity force in trajectory planning
Journal of Neurophysiology
Visuomotor adaptation needs a validation of prediction error by feedback error
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
Cited by (21)
Measures of explicit and implicit in motor learning: what we know and what we don't
2021, Neuroscience and Biobehavioral ReviewsCitation Excerpt :Some rely on an interface or tool (such as visuomotor rotations and force field studies but not prism adaptation). Different paradigms also assess aftereffects and generalization differently (Fleury et al., 2019 provide a comprehensive review of the difference and similarities between these paradigms). In this review, we focus on visuomotor rotations, a task in which the cursor representing the hand is drawn rotated clockwise or counterclockwise relative to the actual hand position.
Characterising sensorimotor adaptation in Complex Regional Pain Syndrome
2021, CortexCitation Excerpt :Participants performed a dynamic prism adaptation paradigm (Prablanc et al., 2019) that involved both open- and closed-loop trials (Fig. 2). Prism adaptation is appropriate for testing sensorimotor adaptation as it is thought to favour context-independent sensorimotor processes, and thus offers greater insight into the workings of the sensorimotor system than other paradigms that rely more on context-dependent processes (e.g., visuo-motor rotation; for review, see Fleury, Prablanc, & Priot, 2019). Because there has been some suggestion that adaptation to optical shifts towards the affected side might exacerbate pain for people with CRPS (Sumitani, Rossetti, et al., 2007), we used adaptation to optical shifts away from the affected/non-dominant side (leftwards for 9/17 people with CRPS; leftwards for 3/18 controls).
Combined virtual reality and haptic robotics induce space and movement invariant sensorimotor adaptation
2021, NeuropsychologiaCitation Excerpt :There is evidence that visuo-motor rotation, among other classes of dynamic perturbations such as force fields, is a different process than prismatic adaptation. In a recent review, Fleury et al. (2019) suggested that there is a fundamental difference between prism adaptation and visuomotor rotation, namely, the difference in credit attribution. While in prism adaptation the ownership of the perceived hand is unquestionable, in visuomotor rotation with an external apparatus, the perturbation might be attributed to the interface properties, rather than to the adaptation of the subject's own sensorimotor system.
Intermittent theta burst stimulation of the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex accelerates visuomotor adaptation with delayed feedback
2020, CortexCitation Excerpt :Brain activation during the early part of prism adaptation centered around parietal and cerebellar regions but not prefrontal regions (Chapman et al., 2010). Prism adaptation and visuomotor adaptation may involve different underlying processes (Fleury, Prablanc, & Priot, 2019). Liew et al. (2018) applied tDCS over left DLPFC during visuomotor adaptation and reported different results.