Sensorimotor Synchronization Task Research Articles

The impact of basal ganglia lesions on sensorimotor synchronization, spontaneous motor tempo, and the detection of tempo changes

The basal ganglia (BG) are part of extensive subcortico-cortical circuits that are involved in a variety of motor and non-motor cognitive functions. Accumulating evidence suggests that one specific function that engages the BG and associated cortico-striato-thalamo-cortical circuitry is temporal processing, i.e., the mechanisms that underlie the encoding, decoding and evaluation of temporal relations or temporal structure. In the current study we investigated the interplay of two processes that require precise representations of temporal structure, namely the perception of an auditory pacing signal and manual motor production by means of finger tapping in a sensorimotor synchronization task. Patients with focal lesions of the BG and healthy control participants were asked to align finger taps to tone sequences that either did or did not contain a tempo acceleration or tempo deceleration at a predefined position, and to continue tapping at the final tempo after the pacing sequence had ceased. Performance in this adaptive synchronization-continuation paradigm differed between the two groups. Selective damage to the BG affected the abilities to detect tempo changes and to perform attention-dependent error correction, particularly in response to tempo decelerations. An additional assessment of preferred spontaneous, i.e., unpaced but regular, production rates yielded more heterogeneous results in the patient group. Together these findings provide evidence for less efficient processing in the perception and the production of temporal structure in patients with focal BG lesions. The results also support the functional role of the BG system in attention-dependent temporal processing.

Increasing stimulus intensity does not affect sensorimotor synchronization

When people synchronize taps with isochronously presented stimuli, taps usually precede the pacing stimuli [negative mean asynchrony (NMA)]. One explanation of NMA [sensory accumulation model (SAM), Aschersleben in Brain Cogn 48:66-79, 2002] is that more time is needed to generate a central code for kinesthetic-tactile information than for auditory or visual stimuli. The SAM predicts that raising the intensity of the pacing stimuli shortens the time for their sensory accumulation, thereby increasing NMA. This prediction was tested by asking participants to synchronize finger force pulses with target isochronous stimuli with various intensities. In addition, participants performed a simple reaction-time task, for comparison. Higher intensity led to shorter reaction times. However, intensity manipulation did not affect NMA in the synchronization task. This finding is not consistent with the predictions based on the SAM. Discrepancies in sensitivity to stimulus intensity between sensorimotor synchronization and reaction-time tasks point to the involvement of different timing mechanisms in these two tasks.

Tapping asynchrony in the sensorimotor synchronization task is affected by memorized rhythm segmental structure

Tapping asynchrony in the sensorimotor synchronization task is affected by memorized rhythm segmental structure

Inter- versus intramodal integration in sensorimotor synchronization: a combined behavioral and magnetoencephalographic study

Although the temporal occurrence of the pacing signal is predictable in sensorimotor synchronization tasks, normal subjects perform on-the-beat-tapping to an isochronous auditory metronome with an anticipatory error. This error originates from an intermodal task, that is, subjects have to bring information from the auditory and tactile modality to coincide. The aim of the present study was to illuminate whether the synchronization error is a finding specific to an intermodal timing task and whether the underlying cortical mechanisms are modality-specific or supramodal. We collected behavioral data and cortical evoked responses by magneto-encephalography (MEG) during performance of cross- and unimodal tapping-tasks. As expected, subjects showed negative asynchrony in performing an auditorily paced tapping task. However, no asynchrony emerged during tactile pacing, neither during pacing at the opposite finger nor at the toe. Analysis of cortical signals resulted in a three dipole model best explaining tap-contingent activity in all three conditions. The temporal behavior of the sources was similar between the conditions and, thus, modality independent. The localization of the two earlier activated sources was modality-independent as well whereas location of the third source varied with modality. In the auditory pacing condition it was localized in contralateral primary somatosensory cortex, during tactile pacing it was localized in contralateral posterior parietal cortex. In previous studies with auditory pacing the functional role of this third source was contradictory: A special temporal coupling pattern argued for involvement of the source in evaluating the temporal distance between tap and click whereas subsequent data gave no evidence for such an interpretation. Present data shed new light on this question by demonstrating differences between modalities in the localization of the third source with similar temporal behavior.

Neurophysiological correlates of error correction in sensorimotor-synchronization

In a sensorimotor synchronization task requiring subjects to tap in synchrony with an auditory stimulus, occasional perturbations (i.e., interval changes) in an otherwise isochronous sequence of auditory metronome stimuli are known to be compensated remarkably swift and with surprising precision, even when they are too small to be consciously perceived. To investigate the neural substrate and the informational basis of error correction in sensorimotor synchronization, we recorded movement-related, auditory-evoked, and error-related EEG potentials. Experiment 1 confirmed rapid adjustment to stimulus phase shifts, with faster correction of large (50 ms) compared to small (15 ms) shifts. In addition to being corrected faster, there was overcorrection of the 50 ms shifts, attributed to engagement of period correction mechanisms. For +50 ms shifts, a neural correlate of period correction was identified in the form of medial frontal cortex activation, preceded by an error-related brain potential (ERN). Auditory-evoked potential (AEP) amplitudes were sensitive to stimulus phase shifts of both large and small magnitude. Further experiments with a smaller magnitude 10 ms phase shift (Experiment 2) and passive auditory stimulation (Experiment 3) provided evidence that the modulation of AEP amplitudes is not due to metronome interval changes, but may represent auditory-somatosensory activation. Together, behavioral and neurophysiological data support the hypothesis that phase correction is a largely automatic process, not dependent on conscious perception of changes in timing. By contrast, perceivable phase shifts may invoke timekeeper adjustments accompanied by medial frontal cortex activity.

Temporal ventriloquism: crossmodal interaction on the time dimension: 2. Evidence from sensorimotor synchronization

In two experiments, we measured audio-visual crossmodal attraction on the time dimension, using a sensorimotor synchronization task. Synchronization performance made it possible to split up the total crossmodal attraction (demonstrated in earlier studies through inter-modal temporal order judgments) into its modality-specific components, the auditory bias of the visual event's perceived time of occurrence and the visual bias of the auditory event's perceived time of occurrence. Participants were asked to produce tapping movements in synchrony with a sequence of isochronously repeated pacing signals. In Experiment 1, pacing signals were light flashes, each preceded or followed, at one of several stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs), by an auditory distracter that the participant was instructed to ignore. The timing of the tap was, in spite of that instruction, strongly biased toward the distracter. In Experiment 2, the converse task was used. The pacing signals were auditory and the to be ignored distracters, light flashes. The timing of the taps was biased significantly here also toward the distracter, but to a much lesser extent. Taken together, these results clearly demonstrate that audition plays a bigger role than vision in temporal ventriloquism and is probably generally superior to vision for processing the temporal dimension of events.

Prefrontal involvement in temporal bridging and timing movement

Brain activity exclusively related to a temporal delay has rarely been investigated using modern brain imaging. In this study we exploited the temporal resolution of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to characterise, by sinusoidal regression analysis, differential neuroactivation patterns induced in healthy subjects by two sensorimotor synchronization tasks different in their premovement delay of either 0.6 s or 5 s. The short event rate condition required rhythmic tapping, while the long event rate condition required timing of intermittent movements. Left rostral prefrontal cortex, medial frontal cortex, SMA and supramarginal gyrus demonstrated increased MR signal intensity during low frequency synchronization, suggesting that these brain regions form a distributed neural network for cognitive time management processes, such as time estimation and motor output timing. Medial frontal cortex showed a biphasic pattern of response during both synchronization conditions, presumably reflecting frequency-independent motor output related attention. As predicted, sensorimotor and visual association areas demonstrated increased MR signal intensity during high frequency synchronization.

Temporal Integration in Sensorimotor Synchronization

Abstract The concept of a temporal integration process in the timing mechanisms in the brain, postulated on the basis of experimental observations from various paradigms (for a review see P$oUppel, 1978), has been explored in a sensorimotor synchronization task. Subjects synchronized their finger taps to sequences of auditory stimuli with interstimulus-onset intervals (ISIs) between 300 and 4800 msec in different trials. Each tonal sequence consisted of 110 stimuli; the tones had a frequency of 500 Hz and a duration of 100 msec. As observed previously, response onsets preceded onsets of the stimuli by some tens of milliseconcls for ISIs in the range from about 600 to 1800 msec. For ISIs longer than or equal to 2400 msec, the ability to time the response sequence in such a way that the response 5 were placed right ahead of the stimuli started to break clown, i.e., the task was fulfilled by reactions to the stimuli rather than by advanced responses. This observation can he understood within the general framework of a temporal integration puce 55 that is supposed to have a maximal capacity (integration interval) of approximately 3 sec. Only if successive stimuli fall within one integration period, can motor programs be initiated properly by a prior stimulus and thus lead to an appropriate synchronization between the stimulus sequence and corresponding motor acts.