Additivity in prism adaptation as manifested in intermanual and interocular transfer

Level of adaptation was assessed in both exposed and unexposed eye and/or hand for visual shift (VS), proprioceptive shift (PS), and the eye-hand coordination, negative after effect (NA) measure of both visual and proprioceptive change, following 15-min and 20-diopter base-right displacement viewing of the active hand, under conditions of unconstrained head movement and terminal exposure feedback. Transfer was complete for the VS test, and significant, but incomplete for the PS and NA tests. For both exposed and unexposed eye/hand situations, level of adaptation was greater for the NA than for the PS test, which in turn showed greater adaptation than the VS test. Additivity was virtually perfect for the unexposed eye/hand (VS+PS = NA), but underadditivity appeared for the exposed eye/hand (VS+PS < NA). This underadditivity was approximately equal in magnitude to the amount that transfer on the NA test was less than on the PS test, suggesting that underadditivity was due to a nontransferable, assimilated corrective response in the NA test with the exposed eye/hand. Possible explanations for intermanual transfer are discussed.     

Intermanual transfer of prism adaptation

The authors measured intermanual transfer in participants (N = 48) whose exposed or unexposed right or left hand was tested 1st after participants experienced prismatic displacement. Test order did not affect either participants' performance during prismatic exposure or the usual aftereffects, but transfer occurred only when the authors tested the exposed right hand 1st. Transfer did not occur, and proprioceptive shift for the exposed left limb decreased when the authors tested the unexposed right limb 1st. The present results suggest that transfer occurs during testing for aftereffects of prism exposure, but not during prism exposure itself, as researchers have previously assumed. Results are consistent with those of previous research that has shown that limb control is lateralized in opposite hemispheres and that the left hemisphere contains a spatial map only for the right limb.     

Proprioception and the production of adaptation and intermanual transfer to prismatic displacement

Proprioceptive adaptation to prismatic displacement and resultant intermanual transfer were investigated in two experiments. In Experiment 1, magnitude of adaptation and transfer were assessed as a result of the reduction of felt sensation via hypnotic anesthesia in an adapting limb. Such anesthesia reduced the magnitude of adaptation in that limb and resultant transfer in the nonadapting limb to a nonsignificant level. Such was not the case when the adapting limb was nonanesthetic. In Experiment 2, adaptation and transfer magnitude were assessed as the result of anesthetic induction in a nonadapting limb. When this was the case, adaptation was produced in the adapting limb but not in the anesthetized, nonadapting limb. The results of the two experiments generally point to proprioception as being the major source of input to the production of intermanual transfer in a prismatic adaptation task.     

Generalization of prism adaptation

Prism exposure produces 2 kinds of adaptive response. Recalibration is ordinary strategic remapping of spatially coded movement commands to rapidly reduce performance error. Realignment is the extraordinary process of transforming spatial maps to bring the origins of coordinate systems into correspondence. Realignment occurs when spatial discordance signals noncorrespondence between spatial maps. In Experiment 1, generalization of recalibration aftereffects from prism exposure to postexposure depended upon the similarity of target pointing limb postures. Realignment aftereffects generalized to the spatial maps involved in exposure. In Experiment 2, the 2 kinds of aftereffects were measured for 3 test positions, one of which was the exposure training position. Recalibration aftereffects generalized nonlinearly, while realignment aftereffects generalized linearly, replicating Bedford (1989, 1993a) using a more familiar prism adaptation paradigm. Recalibration and realignment require methods for distinguishing their relative contribution to prism adaptation.     

Discriminative conditioning of prism adaptation

Two experiments were used to demonstrate that adaptation to ll-deg prism displacement can be conditioned to the stimuli associated with the goggles in which the prisms are housed. In Experiment 1 it was found that repeated alternation between a series of target-pointing responses while wearing prism goggles and a series of responses without prism goggles led to larger adaptive shift when S was tested with nondisplacing goggles than when tested without goggles. The results of Experiment 2 indicated that the adaptation revealed in the first experiment was primarily proprioceptive, rather than visual. Surprisingly, most Ss reported greater difficulty during the exposure period in overcoming the negative aftereffect than they did the prism-induced error.     

Visuomotor coordination and intermanual transfer for a proprioceptive reaching task

Two experiments were conducted to determine the role of head constraint, whether present or absent and arm exposure type (terminal or continuous) on the production of intermanual transfer to two types of visual distortion. Experiment 1 investigated intermanual transfer to binocular, lateral prism displacement where the prism base orientation for both eyes was in the same direction. Experiment 2 determined whether intermanual transfer could be produced to squint prism viewing where the prism base orientation for each eye was in an opposite direction (base-out prisms). In both experiments transfer was produced when either head movement during prism exposure was unconstrained or when a terminal arm exposure was employed. Maximal transfer was produced when both of these conditions were employed.     

Individual differences in the visual component of prism adaptation

The centrality of individual differences in the visual component of perceptual adaptation was examined in a massed-practice-terminal-exposure, prism-viewing paradigm. With positive (adaptive) adjustments in the judgment of the visual straight-ahead, target-pointing aftereffects were found to be equivalent to the sum of the visual and proprioceptive (head-arm) aftereffects. For subjects showing negative visual adjustments to prism exposure, the target-pointing aftereffect was not significantly different from the change in proprioception alone. Implications of these findings for hypotheses concerning the process of perceptual adaptation are discussed.     

An examination of the relationship between visual capture and prism adaptation

The phenomena of prismatically induced “visual capture” and adaptation of the hand were compared. In Experiment 1, it was demonstrated that when the subject’s hand was transported for him by the experimenter (passive movement) immediately preceding the measure of visual capture, the magnitude of the immediate shift in felt limb position (visual capture) was enhanced relative to when the subject moved the hand himself (active movement). In Experiment 2, where the dependent measure was adaptation of the prism-exposed hand, the opposite effect was produced by the active/passive manipulation. It appears, then, that different processes operate to produce visual capture and adaptation. It was speculated that visual capture represents an immediate weighting of visual over proprioceptive input as a result of the greater precision of vision and/or the subject’s tendency to direct his attention more heavily to this modality. In contrast, prism adaptation is probably a recalibration of felt limb position in the direction of vision, induced by the presence of a registered discordance between visual and proprioceptive inputs.     

The role of acceleration information in prism adaptation

Two experiments were performed in which the acceleration component of limb movement information during prism exposure was manipulated, by controlling the trajectory and visibility of arm movement. When limb movements were confined to a lateral motion on a linear track, adaptation was evident when arm movement reversal at the end of the trajectory could be viewed (nonoccluded arm-movement reversal conditions). No adaptation occurred in the occluded arm-movement reversal condition. When movements were made on a curved track, adaptation was evident in both the nonoccluded and the occluded arm-movement reversal conditions. The results indicate that the acceleration component of reafferent stimulation may be critical in prism adaptation when no error information is available.