Integration of proprioceptive and visual feedback during online control of reaching

Kasuga, Shoko [Centre for Neuroscience Studies, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada] Crevecoeur, Frédéric [UCL] Cross, Kevin P. [Centre for Neuroscience Studies, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada] Balalaie, Parsa [Centre for Neuroscience Studies, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada] Scott, Stephen H. [Centre for Neuroscience Studies, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada]

Visual and proprioceptive feedback both contribute to perceptual decisions, but it remains unknown how these feedback signals are integrated together or consider factors such as delays and variance during online control. We investigated this question by having participants reach to a target with randomly applied mechanical and/or visual disturbances. We observed that the presence of visual feedback during a mechanical disturbance did not increase the size of the muscle response significantly but did decrease variance, consistent with a dynamic Bayesian integration model. In a control experiment, we verified that vision had a potent influence when mechanical and visual disturbances were both present but opposite in sign. These results highlight a complex process for multisensory integration, where visual feedback has a relatively modest influence when the limb is mechanically disturbed, but a substantial influence when visual feedback becomes misaligned with the limb. NEW & NOTEWORTHY Visual feedback is more accurate, but proprioceptive feedback is faster. How should you integrate these sources of feedback to guide limb movement? As predicted by dynamic Bayesian models, the size of the muscle response to a mechanical disturbance was essentially the same whether visual feedback was present or not. Only under artificial conditions, such as when shifting the position of a cursor representing hand position, can one observe a muscle response from visual feedback.