Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Figure 1.
Behavioral effects of visual information on foot movement amplitude discrimination. A, An example of the mean psychometric curves for a single participant, where the slope is significantly steeper (lower amplitude discrimination threshold (Discrim.thres.)) when they saw their foot moving. B, For the group (n = 15 participants, shown in individual bars), there was a significant decrease in the discrimination threshold of movement amplitude when the participant watched their foot moving, as compared to having their eyes closed and only using proprioceptive information (*p < 0.05 and the mean discrimination levels are shown as boxes).
Figure Contributions: Marie Chancel performed the experiment. Marie Chancel and Anne Kavounoudias analyzed the data.
- Figure 2.
An example of muscle afferent firing, physiological measures, and the differences between conditions in a single participant. A, An example of three consecutive sinusoid movement cycles applied during each of the four visual/attention conditions. The minimum and maximum firing rates were extracted (gray arrows at the end of each example) and this mean firing rate change (δ) was used to quantify the dynamic response of the muscle afferent, for each condition. In this example, a microneurographic recording was made from a primary muscle afferent (Ia) arising from extensor digitorum longus (EDL) muscle. B, For this muscle afferent, a clear difference in the δ can be seen between when the participant had visual or no visual information (Histograms are mean values and bars are standard deviations per condition), regardless of the attention condition. Inst. freq: instantaneous frequency; imp.: impules.
Figure Contributions: Rochelle Ackerley, Edith Ribot-Ciscar and Jean-Marc Aimonetti performed the experiments. Rochelle Ackerley, Edith Ribot-Ciscar and Anne Kavounoudias analyzed the data.
- Figure 3.
The mean effect of visual information and attention on muscle afferent movement encoding. The group data of Ia muscle afferents (n = 16) show a significant difference in the dynamic response of muscle afferents, as measured by the change in the minimum-to-maximum firing rates (δ), which was normalized via z-transform (means and SEMs are shown). A main effect was found for having visual information, where the δ was significantly lower with visual information, but no significant difference was found in the response between attention conditions, nor the interaction between vision and attention. Inst. freq. : instantaneous frequency.
Figure Contributions: Rochelle Ackerley, Edith Ribot-Ciscar and Jean-Marc Aimonetti performed the experiments. Rochelle Ackerley, Edith Ribot-Ciscar and Anne Kavounoudias analyzed the data.
Tables
Data structure Type of test Power a Behavioral amplitude discrimination level (n = 15 participants) GzLM 0.5 b EMG and EDA data tests per condition/variable (n = 15 participants) for behavioral experiment Student’s paired t test 0.5 c Microneurography data for change in muscle afferent firing over conditions (n = 16 units) Repeated measures two-way ANOVA 0.6 d EMG and EDA data tests per variable (n = 16 recordings) for microneurography experiment Repeated measures two-way ANOVA 0.6 Type and power of the statistical tests carried out in the psychophysics and microneurography experiments. Letters in the left column refer to values within the Results section.
- Table 2.
Mean values and statistics for the physiological measures during microneurography experiment
EMG (mean ± SEM) EDA (mean ± SEM) No vision, relax 14,105 ± 2927 45,857 ± 1537 No vision, attention 14,073 ± 2925 45,828 ± 1502 Vision, relax 14,105 ± 2899 45,820 ± 1555 Vision, attention 14,093 ± 2897 45,723 ± 1556 ANOVA main effect vision F(1,15) = 3.45, p = 0.081, partial η2 = 0.20 F(1,15) = 0.31, p = 0.568, partial η2 = 0.02 ANOVA main effect attention F(1,15) = 0.34, p = 0.857, partial η2 = 0.01 F(1,15) = 0.18, p = 0.679, partial η2 = 0.01 ANOVA interaction vision × attention F(1,15) = 0.17, p = 0.683, partial η2 = 0.01 F(1,15) = 0.12, p = 0.739, partial η2 = 0.01 The mean values for the EMG and EDA, with the SEM, as shown for the microneurography experiment. The EMG and electrodermal responses are shown in arbitrary units (area under the curve) for the duration of the sinusoidal cycles per condition. There was no significant effect of vision, attention, or the interaction of these, as shown in the ANOVAs, where the partial η2 shows the size effects.
- Table 3.
Mean values and statistics for the physiological measures during behavioral experiment
EMG TA
(mean ± SEM)EMG GS
(mean ± SEM)EDA
(mean ± SEM)Vision 9330 ± 1146 8478 ± 1766 8217 ± 1595 No vision 9237 ± 1076 8343 ± 1076 7827 ± 1237 Paired t test vision vs no vision t(13) = 0.92, p = 0.385, partial η2 = 0.06 t(13) = 1.82, p = 0.092, partial η2 = 0.20 t(13) = 0.64, p = 0.531, partial η2 = 0.03 The mean values for the EMG and EDA, with the SEM, as shown for the behavioral experiment. The EMG and electrodermal responses are shown in arbitrary units (area under the curve) for the total number of trials per condition. There was no significant effect of vision, as shown in the ANOVAs, where the partial η2 shows the size effects.
In this issue
