Cited by 96Tactile and Sensory InteractionsMotor Control and AdaptationFree Will and Agency

Physiological and perceptual sensory attenuation have different underlying neurophysiological correlates

Open access
Palmer, Clare E., Davare, Marco, Kilner, James M.·2016·The Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

Sensory attenuation, the top-down filtering or gating of afferent information, has been extensively studied in two fields: physiological and perceptual. Physiological sensory attenuation is represented as a decrease in the amplitude of the primary and secondary components of the somatosensory evoked potential (SEP) before and during movement. Perceptual sensory attenuation, described using the analogy of a persons' inability to tickle oneself, is a reduction in the perception of the afferent input of a self-produced tactile sensation due to the central cancellation of the reafferent signal by the efference copy of the motor command to produce the action. The fields investigating these two areas have remained isolated, so the relationship between them is unclear. The current study delivered median nerve stimulation to produce SEPs during a force-matching paradigm (used to quantify perceptual sensory attenuation) in healthy human subjects to determine whether SEP gating correlated with the behavior. Our results revealed that these two forms of attenuation have dissociable neurophysiological correlates and are likely functionally distinct, which has important implications for understanding neurological disorders in which one form of sensory attenuation but not the other is impaired. Time-frequency analyses revealed a negative correlation over sensorimotor cortex between gamma-oscillatory activity and the magnitude of perceptual sensory attenuation. This finding is consistent with the hypothesis that gamma-band power is related to prediction error and that this might underlie perceptual sensory attenuation. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: We demonstrate that there are two functionally and mechanistically distinct forms of sensory gating. The literature regarding somatosensory evoked potential (SEP) gating is commonly cited as a potential mechanism underlying perceptual sensory attenuation; however, the formal relationship between physiological and perceptual sensory attenuation has never been tested. Here, we measured SEP gating and perceptual sensory attenuation in a single paradigm and identified their distinct neurophysiological correlates. Perceptual and physiological sensory attenuation has been shown to be impaired in various patient groups, so understanding the differential roles of these phenomena and how they are modulated in a diseased state is very important for aiding our understanding of neurological disorders such as schizophrenia, functional movement disorders, and Parkinson's disease.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1523/jneurosci.1694-16.2016

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Palmer, C. E., Davare, M., & Kilner, J. M.
Affiliations
UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology (GB)
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Published
2016-10-19
Volume
36
Issue
42
Pages
10803-10812
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W2534943943
Cited by
96
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 1
FWCI
3.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Brunel University Research Archive (BURA) (Brunel University London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust
  • Royal Society
  • University College London
  • Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
  • Vlaamse regering
  • Directorate for Biological Sciences
  • Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/J014184/1)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Free Will and Agency
Keywords
sensory attenuation, somatosensory evoked potentials, gamma oscillations, efference copy, prediction error, sensorimotor cortex, force matching, tickle, neurological disorders
MeSH terms
Adult, Afferent Pathways, Electric Stimulation, Electroencephalography, Evoked Potentials, Somatosensory, Female, Humans, Male, Median Nerve, Middle Aged, Movement, Perception, Psychomotor Performance, Sensory Gating, Touch Perception, Young Adult, Healthy Volunteers, Gamma Rhythm, Sensorimotor Cortex

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