pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Audio Feedback Associated With Body Movement Enhances Audio and Somatosensory Spatial Representation - PubMed

  • ️Mon Jan 01 2018

Audio Feedback Associated With Body Movement Enhances Audio and Somatosensory Spatial Representation

Anna Vera Cuppone et al. Front Integr Neurosci. 2018.

Abstract

In the last years, the positive impact of sensorimotor rehabilitation training on spatial abilities has been taken into account, e.g., providing evidence that combined multimodal compared to unimodal feedback improves responsiveness to spatial stimuli. To date, it still remains unclear to which extent spatial learning is influenced by training conditions. Here we investigated the effects of active and passive audio-motor training on spatial perception in the auditory and proprioceptive domains on 36 healthy young adults. First, to investigate the role of voluntary movements on spatial perception, we compared the effects of active vs. passive multimodal training on auditory and proprioceptive spatial localization. Second, to investigate the effectiveness of unimodal training conditions on spatial perception, we compared the impact of only proprioceptive or only auditory sensory feedback on spatial localization. Finally, to understand whether the positive effects of multimodal and unimodal trainings generalize to the untrained part, both dominant and non-dominant arms were tested. Results indicate that passive multimodal training (guided movement) is more beneficial than active multimodal training (active exploration) and only in passive condition the improvement is generalized also on the untrained hand. Moreover, we found that combined audio-motor training provides the strongest benefit because it significantly affects both auditory and somatosensory localization, while the effect of a single feedback modality is limited to a single domain, indicating a cross-modal influence of the two domains. Therefore, the use of multimodal feedback is more efficient in improving spatial perception. These results indicate that combined sensorimotor signals are effective in recalibrating auditory and proprioceptive spatial perception and that the beneficial effect is mainly due to the combination of auditory and proprioceptive spatial cues.

Keywords: audio; feedback; perception; proprioception; sensorimotor.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1

Experimental protocol. (A) Description of different training groups depending on the training condition: active or passive movements with independent or combined audio and proprioceptive feedback. (B) Experimental set up. (C) Description of the experimental protocol and schema of the two configurations used in the Assessment test.

Figure 2
Figure 2

Comparison of Active and Passive training conditions. (A) Matching Error (ME) values of Auditory and Proprioceptive Domain related to the Dominant (trained side) and Not Dominant (untrained side) hand for the ACTIVEm, PASSIVEm and CONTROL group. Each dot represents ME value of single subject in the PRE training phase (x axis) and POST training phase (y axis). (B) Relative ME change (mean ± SE) for the ACTIVEm, PASSIVEm and CONTROL group for proprioceptive and auditory domain, evaluated for Dominant and Not Dominant hand. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.

Figure 3
Figure 3

Comparison of combined and independent audio-motor feedback. (A) ME values of Auditory and Proprioceptive Domain related to the Dominant (trained side) and Not Dominant (untrained side) hand for the PASSIVEm, PROPRIOu (group with only proprioceptive feedback) and AUDIOu (group with only auditory feedback) group. Each dot represents ME value of single subject in the PRE training phase (x axis) and POST training phase (y axis). (B) Relative ME change (mean ± SE) for the PASSIVEm, and AUDIOu group for proprioceptive and auditory domain, evaluated for Dominant and Not Dominant hand. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Alais D., Burr D. (2004). The ventriloquist effect results from near-optimal bimodal integration. Curr. Biol. 14, 257–262. 10.1016/j.cub.2004.01.029 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Alsius A., Navarra J., Campbell R., Soto-Faraco S. (2005). Audiovisual integration of speech falters under high attention demands. Curr. Biol. 15, 839–843. 10.1016/j.cub.2005.03.046 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Aman J. E., Elangovan N., Yeh I.-L., Konczak J. (2014). The effectiveness of proprioceptive training for improving motor function: a systematic review. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 8:1075. 10.3389/fnhum.2014.01075 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Arno P., Capelle C., Wanet-Defalque M. C., Catalan-Ahumada M., Veraart C. (1999). Auditory coding of visual patterns for the blind. Perception 28, 1013–1029. 10.1068/p281013 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Arno P., Vanlierde A., Streel E., Wanet-Defalque M.-C., Sanabria-Bohorquez S., Veraart C. (2001). Auditory substitution of vision: pattern recognition by the blind. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 15, 509–519. 10.1002/acp.720 - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources