Abstract

Fingertip force scaling during hand-object interactions typically relies on visual information about the object and sensorimotor memories from previous object interactions. Here, we investigated whether contextual information, that is not explicitly linked to the intrinsic object properties (e.g., size or weight) but that is informative for motor control requirements, can mediate force scaling. For this, we relied on two separate behavioral tasks during which we applied transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to probe corticospinal excitability (CSE), as a window onto the primary motor cortex role in controlling fingertip forces. In experiment 1, participants performed a force tracking task, where we manipulated available implicit and explicit visual information. That is, either the force target was fully visible, or only the force error was displayed as a deviation from a horizontal line. We found that participants’ performance was better when the force target was fully visible, i.e., when they had explicit access to predictive information. However, we did not find differences in CSE modulation based on the type of visual information. On the other hand, CSE was modulated by the change in muscle contraction, i.e., contraction vs. relaxation and fast vs. slow changes. In sum, these findings indicate that CSE only reflects the ongoing motor command. In experiment 2, other participants performed a sequential object lifting task of visually identical objects that were differently weighted, in a seemingly random order. Within this task, we hid short series of incrementally increasing object weights. This allowed us to investigate whether participants would scale their forces for specific object weights based on the previously lifted object (i.e., sensorimotor effect) or based on the implicit information about the hidden series of incrementally increasing weights (i.e., extrapolation beyond sensorimotor effects). Results showed that participants did not extrapolate fingertip forces based on the hidden series but scaled their forces solely on the previously lifted object. Unsurprisingly, CSE was not modulated differently when lifting series of random weights versus series of increasing weights. Altogether, these results in two different grasping tasks suggest that CSE encodes ongoing motor components but not sensorimotor cues that are hidden within contextual information.

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