Cited by 114Motor Control and AdaptationMultisensory perception and integrationTactile and Sensory Interactions

Dynamic multisensory integration: somatosensory speed trumps visual accuracy during feedback control

Open access
Crevecoeur, Frédéric, Munoz, Douglas P., Scott, Stephen H.·2016·The Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

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

Crossref · 10.1523/jneurosci.0184-16.2016

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Crevecoeur, F., Munoz, D. P., & Scott, S. H.
Affiliations
  • UCLouvain (BE)
  • Queen's University (CA)
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Published
2016-08-17
Volume
36
Issue
33
Pages
8598-8611
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
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
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