Abstract

Forward models can predict sensory consequences of self‐action, which is reflected by less neural processing for actively than passively generated sensory inputs (BOLD suppression effect). However, it remains open whether forward models take the identity of a moving body part into account when predicting the sensory consequences of an action. In the current study, fMRI was used to investigate the neural correlates of active and passive hand movements during which participants saw either an on‐line display of their own hand or someone else's hand moving in accordance with their movement. Participants had to detect delays (0–417 ms) between their movement and the displays. Analyses revealed reduced activation in sensory areas and higher delay detection thresholds for active versus passive movements. Furthermore, there was increased activation in the hippocampus, the amygdala, and the middle temporal gyrus when someone else's hand was seen. Most importantly, in posterior parietal (angular gyrus and precuneus), frontal (middle, superior, and medial frontal gyrus), and temporal (middle temporal gyrus) regions, suppression for actively versus passively generated feedback was stronger when participants were viewing their own compared to someone else's hand. Our results suggest that forward models can take hand identity into account when predicting sensory action consequences.

Highlights

  • In order to efficiently react to changes in our environment, sensory events caused by one's own actions need to be distinguished from sensory events caused by other agents (Cullen, 2004)

  • The current study demonstrated on the neural level that the perception of actively generated hand movements is modulated by the identity of the moving hand

  • We found that actively compared to passively generated feedback was associated with blood oxygenation leveldependent (BOLD) suppression in a large cortical network and related to worse delay detection performances

Read more

Summary

Introduction

In order to efficiently react to changes in our environment, sensory events caused by one's own actions need to be distinguished from sensory events caused by other agents (Cullen, 2004). This is not a trivial task, since sensory receptors are activated irrespective of what caused a given stimulus (Crapse & Sommer, 2008). A pivotal difference between actively and passively generated sensory input is that the timing and intensity of the former can be predicted using a neural signal reflecting a copy of the motor command (efference copy; Elijah, Le Pelley, & Whitford, 2016; Pynn & Desouza, 2013; Shergill, Samson, Bays, Frith, & Wolpert, 2005; Sperry & Stone, 1950; von Holst & Mittelstaedt, 1950).

Methods
Findings
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (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