From stimulus to response [Elektronische Ressource] : analyses of electrophysiological and behavioral indicators of sensorimotor interaction processes in linear movements to kinesthetically and visually defined spatial locations / vorgelegt von Waldemar Kirsch

Kirsch

Sujets

• Psychologie

Informations

• Publié par: philipps-universitat_marburg
• Publié le: 01 janvier 2008
• Nombre de lectures: 12
• Langue: English
• Poids de l'ouvrage: 5 Mo

Extrait

From stimulus to response:
Analyses of electrophysiological and behavioral indicators
of sensorimotor interaction processes in linear movements
to kinesthetically and visually defined spatial locations





Dissertation
zur Erlangung des Doktorgrades
der Naturwissenschaften
(Dr. rer. nat.)



dem
Fachbereich Psychologie
der Philipps-Universität Marburg
vorgelegt von



Waldemar Kirsch
aus Kairakkum



Marburg/Lahn 2007

1










Vom Fachbereich Psychologie der Philipps-Universität Marburg als Dissertation am 24.09.07
angenommen.

Erstgutachter.............................................................................................Prof. Dr. Frank Rösler
Zweitgutachter.............................................................................Prof. Dr. Karl R. Gegenfurtner
Tag der mündlichen Prüfung am.....................................................................................18.10.07 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Preface…………………………………………………………………………….….……4
1.1 Theoretical and empirical background…………………………………………………..…..4
1.2 Goals and outcomes of the performed experiments………………..8
1.3 Subsumption of results within a general framework of memory research………………...13

2 Behavioral experiments: “Delay dependent changes of sensorimotor processes in a
motor memory task”……………………………………………………………….……17
2.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………….…..17
2.2 Experiment 1: “Mental distraction”…………………...…………………….…..23
2.2.1 Methods………………………………………………………………………….…...23
2.2.2 Results………………………………….….25
2.2.3 Discussion………………………………………………………………………….…28
2.3 Experiment 2: “Motor distraction”……………………………………...…………...….…31
2.3.1 Methods…………………………………………………………………………....…31
2.3.2 Results……………………………………..32
2.3.3 Discussion…………………………………………………………….……...…....….34
2.4 Experiment 3: “Position vs. distance”……………………………………………………..38
2.4.1 Methods………………………………………………38
2.4.2 Results……………………………………………………………………..39
2.4.3 Discussion……………………..…………………………………………...………...45
2.5 Experiment 4: “Forgetting in the milliseconds range”………………………………...…..49
2.5.1 Methods………………………………………………………………………………49
2.5.2 Results………………………..……………50
2.5.3 Discussion…………………………………………………………….…………...….52
2.6 Experiment 5: “Forgetting in the seconds range”.……………………………………...….57
2.6.1 Methods………………………………………………………………………………57
2.6.2 Results……………….…………………….57
2.6.3 Discussion………………………………………...……………………………...…..59
2.7 General discussion……………………………………………………………………...….62
2.8 Concluding remarks………………………………………………….…………………….65

3 EEG-Study 1: “Effects of time and distance on the memory of kinesthetically defined
spatial locations: an ERP-Study”………………………………………………………66
3.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………..66
3.2 Materials and methods……………………………………………………….……………73
3.2.1 Subjects………………………………………………………………………………73 3

3.2.2 Paradigm and task……………………………………………………………………73
3.2.3 Recording and data pre-processing……………………………..74
3.2.4 Data analysis…………………………………………………………………………76
3.3 Results and discussion……………………………………………………………………..83
3.3.1 Behavioral data………………………………….………………83
3.3.1.1 Reaction times and errors………………………………………………….83
3.3.1.2 Kinematic parameters…………………………………………...…………85
3.3.2 Event Related Activity……………………………………….……………………….96
3.3.2.1 Sensitive time windows…………………………..………………………..97
3.3.2.2 Locating movement………………………………………………………..98
3.3.2.3 Processing after the stop……………………….…………………………102
3.3.2.4 Delay……………………………………………………………………...106
3.3.2.5 Motor programming………………………………………………………119
3.3.2.6 Reproduction movement………………………….………………………123
3.3.2.7 Additional analyses.……………………………....………………………130
3.4 General discussion………………………………………………………………………...143
3.5 Summary and conclusions…………………………………………………………………150

4 EEG-Study 2: “Electrophysiological indicators of visuomotor processes: distance
specific and delay dependent effects”…………………………………………………152
4.1 Introduction………………………………………………………….……………………152
4.2 Materials and methods…………………………………………………………………….156
4.2.1 Subjects…………………………………………………………………………...…156
4.2.2 Paradigm and task…………………………156
4.2.3 Recording and data pre-processing……………………………...…………………..157
4.2.4 Data analysis………………………………………………………………………...158
4.3 Results and discussion………………………………………………………..…………...161
4.3.1 Behavioral data…..………………………………………………………………….161
4.3.2 Event Related Activity…………………………………………….………………..165
4.3.2.1 Evoked alpha activity…...…………………………..……………………169
4.3.2.2 Encoding / delay phase…...………………………………………………174
4.3.2.3 Motor preparation………..…………………………….…………………182
4.3.2.4 Motor control...…………………………………………………….……..187
4.4 General discussion…....…………………………………………………………………...193
4.5 Summary and conclusions... ………………………………………………….…………...198

5 References……………………………………………………………………………..199
6 Appendix………………………………………………………………………………217
7 Zusammenfassung…………………………………………………………………….224
8 Erklärung……………………………………………………………………………...233 4
1 Preface

1.1 Theoretical and empirical background
Reaching out for and grasping objects belongs to our daily behavior. Given the effortlessness
of these motor acts one may be surprised at the huge complexity and plurality of processes
taking place between sensory input and motor output. A simple reaching movement for a cup
of coffee implies several processing steps from the sensing initial hand and target positions to
the transformations of this information into patterns of muscle activity among others.
Much attempt was made within several research areas to describe possible functional and
neuronal mechanisms underlying these processes. One of the essential questions relating to
functional aspects proved to be related to the level of processing at which relevant stimulus
information is maintained and used for motor planning.
It is a common experience that even in the absence of vision we are able to identify a spatial
location of an object after a movement, move away from it, and then point back to that same
position. For instance, while reading a newspaper we may put a cup of coffee on a desktop
without seeing it and reach for it again after a delay. What kind of representation does the
brain maintain and use for planning a movement in similar situations? Within a research
domain, which aims to answer these kinds of questions, several information sources are
discussed. Some findings suggest that the subjects rather code a static target location within a
spatial frame of reference (e.g. Baud-Bovy & Viviani, 1998). Others argue for rather
“intrinsic” sources, like final posture (e.g. Rosenbaum, Meulenbroek, & Vaughan, 1999) or
dynamic movement information (e.g. Millar, 1994) as possible basis for motor planning in
kinesthetic matching tasks. There is neither a theoretical nor an empirical basis up to now that
can explain the obtained discrepancies of the results.
The current state of research in the visuomotor area is more complex, but similar. A series of
psychophysical studies indicated a rather serial course of computations from the retinocentric
target coordinates to body centered planning (e.g. Flanders, Tillery, & Soechting, 1992).
According to this, the initial target representation is assumed to be transformed in head-
centered coordinates by comparing retinal signals with an internal representation of eye
position. Then, head-position signals are combined with a head-centered target representation
providing body-centered target coordinates. Finally, movement kinematics are derived from
comparing target and joint positions, which are represented in the same frame of reference at
this processing stage. On the other hand, based on evidence from single cell recordings a 5
rather direct transformation schema was suggested (e.g. Buneo, Jarvis, Batista, & Andersen,
2002). Within this model the current target and hand positions are integrated on the level of
eye coordinates. Both planning modes were supported by several findings and some
extensions and modifications were suggested. Considering as a whole, the results indicate a
complex and ambiguous picture, in which the involvement of a specific mechanism seems to
be task and context dependent (e.g. Battaglia-Mayer, Caminiti, Lacquaniti, & Zago, 2003).
Despite the complexity of sensorimotor processes and possible methodical deviations, like the
use of dependent measures and experimental designs, what could be the reason for
contradictory results suggesting rather different scenarios for similar task situations?
One potential aspect that might possibly help to resolve some discrepancies stems from a
further line of research focusing on sensorimotor interactions.
Our introspective thinking is affected by the view that perceptual processes (i.e. conscious
ide