Robotic hand illusion with tactile feedback: Unravelling the relative contribution of visuotactile and visuomotor input to the representation of body parts in space.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
22
12
2017
accepted:
17
12
2018
entrez:
24
1
2019
pubmed:
24
1
2019
medline:
1
10
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The rubber hand illusion describes a phenomenon in which participants experience a rubber hand as being part of their body by the synchronous application of visuotactile stimulation to the real and the artificial limb. In the recently introduced robotic hand illusion (RobHI), a robotic hand is incorporated into one's body representation due to the integration of synchronous visuomotor information. However, there are no setups so far that combine visuotactile and visuomotor feedback, which is expected to unravel mechanisms that cannot be detected in experimental designs applying this information in isolation. We developed a robotic hand, controlled by a sensor glove and equipped with pressure sensors, and varied systematically and separately the synchrony for motor feedback (MF) and tactile feedback (TF). In Experiment 1, we implemented a ball-grasping task and assessed the perceived proprioceptive drift of one's own hand as a behavioral measure of the spatial calibration of body coordinates as well as explicit embodiment experiences by a questionnaire. Results revealed significant main effects of both MF and TF for proprioceptive drift data, but we only observed main effects for MF on perceived embodiment. Furthermore, for the proprioceptive drift we found that synchronous feedback in one factor compensates for asynchronous feedback in the other. In Experiment 2, including a new sample of naïve participants, we further explored this finding by adding unimodal conditions, in which we manipulated the presence or absence of MF and/or TF. These findings replicated the results from Experiment 1 and we further found evidence for a supper-additive multisensory effect on spatial body representation caused by the presence of both factors. Results on conscious body perception were less consistent across both experiments. The findings indicate that sensory and motor input equally contribute to the representation of spatial body coordinates which for their part are subject to multisensory enhancing effects. The results outline the potential of human-in-the-loop approaches and might have important implications for clinical applications such as for the future design of robotic prostheses.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30673739
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0210058
pii: PONE-D-17-43819
pmc: PMC6343880
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0210058Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg. 2009;43(5):260-6
pubmed: 19863429
Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2007 Dec;86(12):977-87
pubmed: 18090439
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2014 Apr;41:85-97
pubmed: 23416066
Hum Brain Mapp. 2015 Feb;36(2):717-30
pubmed: 25346407
Psychol Res. 2016 Mar;80(2):298-306
pubmed: 25656162
PLoS One. 2010 Apr 29;5(4):e10381
pubmed: 20454463
Exp Brain Res. 2010 Jul;204(3):343-52
pubmed: 19820918
Neuron. 2015 Oct 7;88(1):145-66
pubmed: 26447578
Psychon Bull Rev. 2009 Apr;16(2):225-37
pubmed: 19293088
Trends Cogn Sci. 2006 Jul;10(7):319-26
pubmed: 16807063
Perception. 2014;43(1):43-58
pubmed: 24689131
Cognition. 2008 Jun;107(3):978-98
pubmed: 18262508
Sci Rep. 2015 Dec 22;5:18603
pubmed: 26690698
J Neurosci. 2005 Nov 9;25(45):10564-73
pubmed: 16280594
PLoS One. 2011;6(6):e21659
pubmed: 21738756
Neuroimage. 2005 Feb 15;24(4):1225-32
pubmed: 15670700
Brain. 2011 Mar;134(Pt 3):747-58
pubmed: 21252109
Neuropsychologia. 2013 Jul;51(8):1453-62
pubmed: 23603022
Front Integr Neurosci. 2014 Apr 17;8:31
pubmed: 24860446
Conscious Cogn. 2006 Jun;15(2):423-32
pubmed: 16343947
Neuropsychologia. 2010 Feb;48(3):703-12
pubmed: 19819247
Front Neurorobot. 2017 May 23;11:24
pubmed: 28588473
Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cogn Sci. 2019 Mar;10(2):e1486
pubmed: 30485732
Science. 1983 Jul 22;221(4608):389-91
pubmed: 6867718
PLoS One. 2009 Jul 09;4(7):e6185
pubmed: 19587780
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999 Aug 31;96(18):10418-21
pubmed: 10468623
PLoS One. 2016 Jul 25;11(7):e0159619
pubmed: 27454579
Brain Cogn. 2007 Jun;64(1):104-9
pubmed: 17118503
Curr Biol. 2005 Sep 20;15(18):R762-4
pubmed: 16169476
Perception. 2009;38(2):271-80
pubmed: 19400435
Sci Rep. 2016 Apr 22;6:24362
pubmed: 27103059
IEEE Trans Haptics. 2014 Oct-Dec;7(4):526-32
pubmed: 25532152
Brain. 2008 Dec;131(Pt 12):3443-52
pubmed: 19074189
PLoS One. 2012;7(11):e50756
pubmed: 23226375
PLoS One. 2014 Jan 31;9(1):e87013
pubmed: 24498012
Front Hum Neurosci. 2012 Mar 14;6:40
pubmed: 22435056
Conscious Cogn. 2008 Jun;17(2):411-24
pubmed: 18411059
Cognition. 2017 Feb;159:1-10
pubmed: 27880880
Behav Res Methods. 2015 Sep;47(3):744-55
pubmed: 24942249
Perception. 2007;36(10):1547-54
pubmed: 18265837
Neuropsychologia. 2015 Apr;70:414-20
pubmed: 25446964
Sci Rep. 2018 Feb 7;8(1):2531
pubmed: 29416065
Cogn Process. 2004 Jun;5(2):94-105
pubmed: 16467906
Sci Rep. 2013 Oct 03;3:2844
pubmed: 24088746
Conscious Cogn. 2016 Oct;45:75-88
pubmed: 27580459
Nature. 1998 Feb 19;391(6669):756
pubmed: 9486643
PLoS One. 2012;7(9):e44306
pubmed: 23028516
J Neurosci. 2013 Feb 13;33(7):2729-31
pubmed: 23407933
Schmerz. 2009 Oct;23(5):479-88
pubmed: 19322592
Nature. 2002 Jan 24;415(6870):429-33
pubmed: 11807554
Conscious Cogn. 2014 Nov;30:118-32
pubmed: 25286241