Stephanie A. H. Jones

Memory for proprioceptive and multisensory targets is partially coded relative to gaze

We examined the effect of gaze direction relative to target location on reach endpoint errors made to proprioceptive and multisensory targets. We also explored if and how visual and proprioceptive information about target location are integrated to guide reaches. Participants reached to their unseen left hand in one of three target locations (left of body midline, body midline, or right or body midline), while it remained at a target site (online), or after it was removed from this location (remembered), and also after the target hand had been briefly lit before reaching (multisensory target). The target hand was guided to a target location using a robot-generated path. Reaches were made with the right hand in complete darkness, while gaze was varied in one of four eccentric directions. Horizontal reach errors systematically varied relative to gaze for all target modalities; not only for visually remembered and online proprioceptive targets as has been found in previous studies, but for the first time, also for remembered proprioceptive targets and proprioceptive targets that were briefly visible. These results suggest that the brain represents the locations of online and remembered proprioceptive reach targets, as well as visual-proprioceptive reach targets relative to gaze, along with other motor-related representations. Our results, however, do not suggest that visual and proprioceptive information are optimally integrated when coding the location of multisensory reach targets in this paradigm.

A task-dependent effect of memory and hand-target on proprioceptive localization

We examine whether the task goal affects the accuracy and precision with which participants can localize an unseen hand. Proprioceptive localization was measured using three different tasks: two goal-directed movement tasks (reaching to and reproducing final hand-target location) and a perceptual estimation task in which participants judged the location of the hand-target relative to visual references. We also assessed whether proprioceptive localization in these different tasks is affected by localization from memory, the hand-target being localized (left or right) or the movement path of the proprioceptive target (9 paths, derived from combinations of starting and final hand-target positions). We found that participants were less precise when reaching from memory, but not when reproducing or estimating remembered final hand-target location. Participants also misperceived the felt location of their hands, judging their left hand to be more leftward and their right hand to be more rightward when reaching to and when estimating final hand-target location, but not when reproducing hand-target location. The movement path of the proprioceptive target did not affect localization, regardless of the task goal. Overall, localization seems poorer when proprioception is used to guide a reach with the opposite hand, particularly from memory, and best when merely reproducing the proprioceptive target site. This may have an important application in neuro-rehabilitation, whereby one task may better establish or re-establish important or failing sensory connections.

Reach endpoint errors do not vary with movement path of the proprioceptive target

Previous research has shown that reach endpoints vary with the starting position of the reaching hand and the location of the reach target in space. We examined the effect of movement direction of a proprioceptive target-hand, immediately preceding a reach, on reach endpoints to that target. Participants reached to visual, proprioceptive (left target-hand), or visual-proprioceptive targets (left target-hand illuminated for 1 s prior to reach onset) with their right hand. Six sites served as starting and final target locations (35 target movement directions in total). Reach endpoints do not vary with the movement direction of the proprioceptive target, but instead appear to be anchored to some other reference (e.g., body). We also compared reach endpoints across the single and dual modality conditions. Overall, the pattern of reaches for visual-proprioceptive targets resembled those for proprioceptive targets, while reach precision resembled those for the visual targets. We did not, however, find evidence for integration of vision and proprioception based on a maximum-likelihood estimator in these tasks.

Proprioceptive precision is impaired in Ehlers–Danlos syndrome

It has been suggested that people with Ehlers–Danlos syndrome (EDS), or other similar connective tissue disorders, may have proprioceptive impairments, the reason for which is still unknown. We recently found that EDS patients were less precise than healthy controls when estimating their felt hand’s position relative to visible peripheral reference locations, and that this deficit was positively correlated with the severity of joint hypermobility. We further explore proprioceptive abilities in EDS by having patients localize their non-dominant left hand at a greater number of workspace locations than in our previous study. Additionally, we explore the relationship between chronic pain and proprioceptive sensitivity. We found that, although patients were just as accurate as controls, they were not as precise. Patients showed twice as much scatter than controls at all locations, but the degree of scatter did not positively correlate with chronic pain scores. This further supports the idea that a proprioceptive impairment pertaining to precision is present in EDS, but may not relate to the magnitude of chronic pain.

Measuring the components of attention using the Dalhousie Computerized Attention Battery (DalCAB).

Using experimentally validated tests to measure the vigilance/alerting, orienting and executive control attention networks, we have developed a novel, theoretically driven battery for measuring attentional abilities, called the Dalhousie Computerized Attention Battery (DalCAB). The current study sought to examine the factor structure of the DalCAB as preliminary evidence for its validation as an assessment tool for the above-named attention networks. One hundred young, healthy adult participants (18 to 31 years) completed the DalCAB (simple reaction time, choice reaction time, dual task, go/no-go, visual search, vertical flanker, and item memory tasks). Exploratory factor analysis of task performance with promax rotation highlighted a 9-factor model, accounting for 54.66% of the shared variance. Factors 1, 2, and 5 are associated with measures reflecting the vigilance/alerting network (response speed, maintenance/preparation and consistency, respectively), Factor 3 is associated with the orienting network (searching measures). Factors 4, 6, 7, and 8 are associated with different aspects of the executive control network including: inhibition, working memory, filtering, and switching. The final factor is associated with vigilance/alerting (fatigue) and executive control (proactive interference). Our model provides preliminary evidence for the validation of our interpretation of the DalCAB as a measure of vigilance/alerting, orienting, and executive control attentional abilities, and contributes to the previously reported evidence for the validation of these tasks for measuring different aspects of attention. We also demonstrate the importance of each of the specific measures derived from the DalCAB tasks, and our results provide further behavioral evidence of the existence of multiple attention-related networks.

Measuring the Performance of Attention Networks with the Dalhousie Computerized Attention Battery (DalCAB): Methodology and Reliability in Healthy Adults

Attention is an important, multifaceted cognitive domain that has been linked to three distinct, yet interacting, networks: alerting, orienting, and executive control. The measurement of attention and deficits of attention within these networks is critical to the assessment of many neurological and psychiatric conditions in both research and clinical settings. The Dalhousie Computerized Attention Battery (DalCAB) was created to assess attentional functions related to the three attention networks using a range of tasks including: simple reaction time, go/no-go, choice reaction time, dual task, flanker, item and location working memory, and visual search. The current study provides preliminary normative data, test-retest reliability (intraclass correlations) and practice effects in DalCAB performance 24-h after baseline for healthy young adults (n = 96, 18–31 years). Performance on the DalCAB tasks demonstrated Good to Very Good test-retest reliability for mean reaction time, while accuracy and difference measures (e.g., switch costs, interference effects, and working memory load effects) were most reliable for tasks that require more extensive cognitive processing (e.g., choice reaction time, flanker, dual task, and conjunction search). Practice effects were common and pronounced at the 24-h interval. In addition, performance related to specific within-task parameters of the DalCAB sub-tests provides preliminary support for future formal assessment of the convergent validity of our interpretation of the DalCAB as a potential clinical and research assessment tool for measuring aspects of attention related to the alerting, orienting, and executive control networks.

Proprioceptive acuity varies with task, hand target, and when memory is used

Participants completed a series of seven tasks to assess proprioceptive acuity of each hand. Proprioceptive localization was fairly accurate and precise. Constant error and precision differences were found as a function of the task, movement of the hand target, the hand being localized, and localization from memory.

Methods for validating chronometry of computerized tests

ABSTRACT Determining the speed at which a task is performed (i.e., reaction time) can be a valuable tool in both research and clinical assessments. However, standard computer hardware employed for measuring reaction times (e.g., computer monitor, keyboard, or mouse) can add nonrepresentative noise to the data, potentially compromising the accuracy of measurements and the conclusions drawn from the data. Therefore, an assessment of the accuracy and precision of measurement should be included along with the development of computerized tests and assessment batteries that rely on reaction times as the dependent variable. This manuscript outlines three methods for assessing the temporal accuracy of reaction time data (one employing external chronometry). Using example data collected from the Dalhousie Computerized Attention Battery (DalCAB) we discuss the detection, measurement, and correction of nonrepresentative noise in reaction time measurement. The details presented in this manuscript should act as a cautionary tale to any researchers or clinicians gathering reaction time data, but who have not yet considered methods for verifying the internal chronometry of the software and or hardware being used.

Changes in trunk orientation do not induce asymmetries in covert orienting.

We explored the effect of trunk orientation on responses to visual targets in five experiments, following work suggesting a disengage deficit in covert orienting related to changes in the trunk orientation of healthy participants. In two experiments, participants responded to the color of a target appearing in the left or right visual field following a peripheral visual cue that was informative about target location. In three additional experiments, participants responded to the location (left/right) of a target using a spatially compatible motor response. In none of the experiments did trunk orientation interact with spatial-cuing effects, suggesting that orienting behavior is not affected by the rotation of the body relative to the head. Theoretical implications are discussed.

Directional interactions between current and prior saccades

One way to explore how prior sensory and motor events impact eye movements is to ask someone to look to targets located about a central point, returning gaze to the central point after each eye movement. Concerned about the contribution of this return to center movement, Anderson et al. (2008) used a sequential saccade paradigm in which participants made a continuous series of saccades to peripheral targets that appeared to the left or right of the currently fixated location in a random sequence (the next eye movement began from the last target location). Examining the effects of previous saccades (n−x) on current saccade latency (n), they found that saccadic reaction times (RT) were reduced when the direction of the current saccade matched that of a preceding saccade (e.g., two left saccades), even when the two saccades in question were separated by multiple saccades in any direction. We examined if this pattern extends to conditions in which targets appear inside continuously marked locations that provide stable visual features (i.e., target “placeholders”) and when saccades are prompted by central arrows. Participants completed 3 conditions: peripheral targets (PT; continuous, sequential saccades to peripherally presented targets) without placeholders; PT with placeholders; and centrally presented arrows (CA; left or right pointing arrows at the currently fixated location instructing participants to saccade to the left or right). We found reduced saccadic RT when the immediately preceding saccade (n−1) was in the same (vs. opposite) direction in the PT without placeholders and CA conditions. This effect varied when considering the effect of the previous 2–5 (n−x) saccades on current saccade latency (n). The effects of previous eye movements on current saccade latency may be determined by multiple, time-varying mechanisms related to sensory (i.e., retinotopic location), motor (i.e., saccade direction), and environmental (i.e., persistent visual objects) factors.