Dynamic multisensory integration: somatosensory speed trumps visual accuracy during feedback control
Open accessAbstract
UNLABELLED: Recent advances in movement neuroscience have consistently highlighted that the nervous system performs sophisticated feedback control over very short time scales (<100 ms for upper limb). These observations raise the important question of how the nervous system processes multiple sources of sensory feedback in such short time intervals, given that temporal delays across sensory systems such as vision and proprioception differ by tens of milliseconds. Here we show that during feedback control, healthy humans use dynamic estimates of hand motion that rely almost exclusively on limb afferent feedback even when visual information about limb motion is available. We demonstrate that such reliance on the fastest sensory signal during movement is compatible with dynamic Bayesian estimation. These results suggest that the nervous system considers not only sensory variances but also temporal delays to perform optimal multisensory integration and feedback control in real-time. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: Numerous studies have demonstrated that the nervous system combines redundant sensory signals according to their reliability. Although very powerful, this model does not consider how temporal delays may impact sensory reliability, which is an important issue for feedback control because different sensory systems are affected by different temporal delays. Here we show that the brain considers not only sensory variability but also temporal delays when integrating vision and proprioception following mechanical perturbations applied to the upper limb. Compatible with dynamic Bayesian estimation, our results unravel the importance of proprioception for feedback control as a consequence of the shorter temporal delays associated with this sensory modality.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Optimal multisensory integration and feedback control in real-time rely more importantly on proprioceptive information.
“Optimal multisensory integration and feedback control in real-time rely more importantly on proprioceptive information (Crevecoeur et al., 2016).”
From The Forward Model: A Unifying Theory for the Role of the Cerebellum in Motor Control and Sense of Agency (2021) · cites this paper as Crevecoeur et al., 2016
Cites
The Neural Basis of Decision Making
Gold, J. I., & Shadlen, M. N. (2007) · Annual Review of Neuroscience · doi:10.1146/annurev.neuro.29.051605.113038 · Cited by 3,764 · see citing works
Optimal feedback control as a theory of motor coordination
Todorov, E., & Jordan, M. I. (2002) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn963 · Cited by 3,081 · see citing works
Integration of Proprioceptive and Visual Position-Information: An Experimentally Supported Model
van Beers, R. J., Sittig, A. C., & Gon, J. J. D. V. D. (1999) · Journal of Neurophysiology · doi:10.1152/jn.1999.81.3.1355 · Cited by 742 · see citing works
Multisensory integration: psychophysics, neurophysiology, and computation
Angelaki, D. E., Gu, Y., & DeAngelis, G. C. (2009) · Current Opinion in Neurobiology · doi:10.1016/j.conb.2009.06.008 · Cited by 383 · see citing works
Perceptual decision making in less than 30 milliseconds
Stanford, T. R., Shankar, S., Massoglia, D. P., Costello, M. G., & Salinas, E. (2010) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn.2485 · Cited by 228 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Welniarz, Q., Worbe, Y., & Gallea, C. (2021) · Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnsys.2021.644059 · Cited by 125 · see citing works
Contribution of the cerebellum to predictive motor control and its evaluation in ataxic patients
Kakei, S., Lee, J., Mitoma, H., Tanaka, H., Manto, M., & Hampe, C. S. (2019) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2019.00216 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
- Authors
- Crevecoeur, F., Munoz, D. P., & Scott, S. H.
- Affiliations
- UCLouvain (BE)
- Queen's University (CA)
- Venue
- The Journal of Neuroscience
- Publisher
- Society for Neuroscience
- Published
- 2016-08-17
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 33
- Pages
- 8598-8611
- ISSN
- 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
- 1529-2401
- PMC
- PMC6601898
- OpenAlex
- W2516235848
- Cited by
- 114
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 8
- FWCI
- 5.09
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DIAL (Catholic University of Leuven) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- Canadian Institutes of Health Research (201102MFE-246249-210313)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Multisensory perception and integration
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
- Keywords
- multisensory integration, feedback control, proprioception, visual perception, time delay, sensory reliability, mechanical perturbation, upper limb, sensorimotor control
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Analysis of Variance, Bayes Theorem, Female, Hand, Humans, Male, Models, Biological, Movement, Proprioception, Reaction Time, Time Factors, Vision, Ocular, Reproducibility of Results, Young Adult, Feedback, Sensory
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review