Abstract
Action control requires precisely and flexibly linking sensory input and motor output. This is true for both, visuo-motor and somatosensory-motor integration. However, while perception–action integration has been extensively investigated for the visual modality, data on how somatosensory and action-related information is associated are scarce. We use the Theory of Event Coding (TEC) as a framework to investigate perception–action integration in the somatosensory-motor domain. Based on studies examining the neural mechanisms underlying stimulus–response binding in the visuo-motor domain, the current study investigates binding mechanisms in the somatosensory-motor domain using EEG signal decomposition and source localization analyses. The present study clearly demonstrates binding between somatosensory stimulus and response features. Importantly, repetition benefits but no repetition costs are evident in the somatosensory modality, which differs from findings in the visual domain. EEG signal decomposition indicates that response selection mechanisms, rather than stimulus-related processes, account for the behavioral binding effects. This modulation is associated with activation differences in the left superior parietal cortex (BA 7), an important relay of sensorimotor integration.
Highlights
Action control requires precisely and flexibly linking sensory input and motor output
Performance was superior when the finger was repeatedly stimulated compared to the condition when finger stimulation was alternated. This indicates that participants showed repetition benefits but no repetition costs in the tactile event file paradigm
The present study investigates the neurophysiological basis of stimulus–response binding in the somatosensory modality
Summary
Action control requires precisely and flexibly linking sensory input and motor output. Whether you grab a cup or open a car door, the proper association/binding of stimuli and actions is an essential prerequisite to control actions This encompasses and requires the integration of both visuo-motor and somatosensory-motor information. The formation of a new event file is hampered when only some of the features overlap as compared to all or none indicating the necessity for reconfiguration of the already stored information[1] This is referred to as ’partial-repetition cost’ and indicates temporal binding of stimulus and response features[3]. Prior to the presentation of the stimuli, a cue is given requiring a binary choice as soon as the first stimulus (S1) appears This response, which is independent of the features of S1, serves to establish an association between stimulus and response features in an experimentally controlled way on a trial-by-trial basis. The second stimulus (S2) requires a binary choice, depending on the features of S2, so that the interference between repeating or alternating stimulus and response features can be measured
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
