Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
  • SUBSCRIBE

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Neuroscience
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Neuroscience

Advanced Search

Submit a Manuscript
  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
  • SUBSCRIBE
PreviousNext
Journal Club

Is Action-Perception Coupling Improved with Delay in Patients with Focal Cerebellar Lesions?

Wouter Hoogkamer and Pieter Meyns
Journal of Neuroscience 20 August 2014, 34 (34) 11175-11176; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2218-14.2014
Wouter Hoogkamer
Movement Control and Neuroplasticity Research Group, Department of Kinesiology, KU Leuven
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Wouter Hoogkamer
Pieter Meyns
Movement Control and Neuroplasticity Research Group, Department of Kinesiology, KU Leuven
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

It has been proposed that the cerebellum uses internal forward models to predict sensory consequences of particular actions (Wolpert and Flanagan, 2001). This allows movements to be corrected when necessary. In addition to its paramount role in the control of movements, the cerebellum is also involved in sensory processing and perception, but there is no straightforward evidence for the cerebellum's involvement in the integration of action and perception. Therefore, a recent study in The Journal of Neuroscience set out to investigate the role of the cerebellum in action–perception coupling. Specifically, Christensen et al. (2014) studied patients with focal cerebellar lesions and healthy controls in a paradigm that measures the effect of motor execution on visual action perception.

Participants performed waving motions with the right arm using a setup that allowed participants' own arm movements to be visually presented on a screen in front of them (as five black dots). These stimuli were accompanied by varying numbers of noise dots, which moved based on the waving movements of the participants, but were spatiotemporally scrambled. The patients were asked to indicate whether they recognized a waving arm movement. Two-thirds of the trials contained the arm and noise dots, and in half of these trials the participants' own movements were presented in real-time (“synchronous” test condition; delay ∼38 ms), while in the other half the participants' movements were presented with a time delay of 700 ms (“asynchronous” test condition). In the remainder of the trials, only noise dots were presented. In addition, the participants performed the waving arm detection task without performing the waving movements (baseline condition).

Detection performance was assessed using the noise tolerance value (NTV; i.e., the maximum number of noise dots that would lead to 75% of the optimal detection sensitivity). The influence of motor execution on detection performance was quantified (for the synchronous and asynchronous conditions separately) as the logarithm of the NTV of the test condition divided by the NTV of the baseline. This measure was called the interaction-index. An interaction-index value >0 indicates a facilitatory effect of motor execution on perception, whereas a value <0 indicates an inhibitory effect. The interaction-indices of the synchronous and asynchronous conditions were combined in one overall measure of action–perception coupling (APC-index), in which the interaction-index of the asynchronous condition was subtracted from the interaction-index of the synchronous condition.

In healthy participants, motor execution facilitated action perception performance in synchronous conditions, but inhibited action perception performance in asynchronous conditions. The APC-index for this “normal” action–perception coupling was positive. Importantly, no interaction was observed in the cerebellar patient group, for whom the group average of the detection performance was not different from zero in either synchronous or asynchronous conditions (Christensen et al., 2014, their Fig. 1B).

To identify distinct cerebellar areas that are responsible for the deficit in action–perception coupling, a cluster analysis was performed on the APC-index to classify patients as having an affected or unaffected action–perception coupling. Six affected patients were identified with an impaired action–perception coupling (APC-index <0), while the remaining 11 patients were clustered with a positive APC-index (Christensen et al., 2014, their Fig. 3). Lesion symptom mapping was applied, in which the lesions of the 11 unaffected patients were subtracted from the lesions of the affected patients (subtraction analysis). This revealed significant associations of impaired action–perception coupling with the ipsilateral (right) dentate nucleus, lobules V, VI, VIIIa, VIIIb, and IX. Furthermore, lesions of the contralateral (left) Crus II and lobule VIIb were also correlated to impaired action–perception coupling (Christensen et al., 2014, their Fig. 5). This analysis allowed the authors to deduce that an intact ability to estimate one's own movements (which requires ipsilateral lobules V and VI) facilitates the detection of synchronous stimuli, that the posterior regions of the cerebellum support sensorimotor integration in the cerebellar-parietal loops, and that both are essential for an intact action-perception coupling.

Christensen et al. (2014) performed a thorough experiment, in which many confounding factors, such as possible oculomotor deficits and movement disorders in the patient group, were taken into account. Furthermore, several permutations of the main behavioral outcome measure (detection performance) were applied to attain a single outcome parameter (APC-index), which is insensitive to any dual task effects. This APC-index was then used to classify patients as affected or unaffected and was used for all secondary analyses. However, the detection performance in the synchronous and asynchronous conditions underlying this outcome measure in the two subgroups (unaffected and affected) was not discussed.

Still, as noted by the authors, action–perception coupling modulation in the patients classified as affected was not just reduced, but actually inversed (as such the terms “(un)affected” and “(un)impaired” are not necessarily accurate). From the data presented, it is not possible to directly compare the behavior in the asynchronous and the synchronous condition for the affected patients, but because their APC-index was negative (Christensen et al., 2014, their Fig. 3), it appears that they performed better in the asynchronous than in the synchronous condition. Notably, some control participants also showed a negative APC-index (the range from zero to the lower 25th percentile; Christensen et al., 2014, their Fig. 3).

The considerations in the preceding paragraph indicate the difficulty of identifying affected patients. For measures with a high interindividual variability in the healthy control group, finding a behavioral cutoff threshold to classify patients as affected or unaffected is not straightforward. For experiments with rare patient populations, however, such a cutoff value is needed, because analyses based on the continuous data lack power for sample sizes smaller than 20 (Timmann et al., 2009). With this cutoff-based approach Christensen et al. (2014) managed to provide a clear link between action–perception coupling and the cerebellum. Furthermore, they should be acknowledged for recruiting a patient sample without any patients who received adjuvant radiotherapy or chemotherapy (since this could have affected extra-cerebellar brain functions).

Looking beyond the classification of patients as affected or unaffected, the individual patient data suggest that compared with synchronous stimulus presentation, delayed stimulus presentation resulted in worse performance in some patients (APC-index >0), similar performance in others (APC-index = 0), and even an improved performance (a facilitatory or less inhibitory effect) in others (APC-index <0; Christensen et al., 2014, their Fig. 3). This raises a question: why does a delayed stimulus presentation result in a facilitatory (or less inhibitory) effect compared with synchronous presentation in these cerebellar patients (and some of the control participants)?

Since the action–perception coupling in these patients is inversely modulated between temporal synchronicity conditions, we suggest that deficits in action–perception coupling in these patients are related to temporal mismatching of processes rather than to a general deficit (which would have resulted in an APC-index of zero). Such temporal mismatching will occur if some processes take more time, for instance if the calculation of the current somatosensory state estimate is delayed. From this perspective, it would be of interest for further research to study the reaction times of the answers in patients with cerebellar lesions compared with controls in a similar paradigm (Jokisch et al., 2005). Results from such an analysis could yield more insight into the possible somatosensory delays in patients. More insight could also be gained from exploring the baseline data, since there is some debate about the involvement of visual perception of (biological) motion in cerebellar patients (Jokisch et al., 2005; Cattaneo et al., 2012). A related issue is whether patients and controls were equally aware that their own arm motion was used in the projection (as in Christensen et al. (2011) in healthy controls).

Christensen et al. (2014) provide valuable insights about the involvement of the cerebellum in the integration of action and perception, applying a lesion symptom mapping approach to an elaborate paradigm to link visual action perception to motor execution. It would be of interest to perform a similar paradigm in control participants in a functional imaging scanner (albeit with wrist rather than arm movements), and compare functional imaging results with these lesion symptom mapping results. Additional information concerning the cerebrocerebellar connections could be gained from non-task-specific imaging analyses as well, for instance using resting-state functional connectivity (Buckner et al., 2011) in a similar patient population.

In conclusion, Christensen et al. (2014) used an effective paradigm to demonstrate the role of distinct areas of the cerebellum in action–perception coupling. They have provided important insights concerning the cerebellum's role, which is a valuable starting point for future studies to investigate the underlying mechanisms of facilitation and inhibition of motor execution on perception in various conditions and patient populations.

Footnotes

  • Editor's Note: These short, critical reviews of recent papers in the Journal, written exclusively by graduate students or postdoctoral fellows, are intended to summarize the important findings of the paper and provide additional insight and commentary. For more information on the format and purpose of the Journal Club, please see http://www.jneurosci.org/misc/ifa_features.shtml.

  • This work was supported by Research Foundation-Flanders (FWO Grants G.0756.10 and G.0901.11). We thank Zrinka Potočanac and Kaat Alaerts for fruitful discussions.

  • The authors declare no competing financial interests.

  • Correspondence should be addressed to Wouter Hoogkamer, Movement Control and Neuroplasticity Research Group, Department of Kinesiology, KU Leuven, Tervuursevest 101 bus 1501, 3001 Leuven, Belgium. wouter.hoogkamer{at}faber.kuleuven.be

References

  1. ↵
    1. Buckner RL,
    2. Krienen FM,
    3. Castellanos A,
    4. Diaz JC,
    5. Yeo BT
    (2011) The organization of the human cerebellum estimated by intrinsic functional connectivity. J Neurophysiol 106:2322–2345, doi:10.1152/jn.00339.2011, pmid:21795627.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Cattaneo L,
    2. Fasanelli M,
    3. Andreatta O,
    4. Bonifati DM,
    5. Barchiesi G,
    6. Caruana F
    (2012) Your actions in my cerebellum: subclinical deficits in action observation in patients with unilateral chronic cerebellar stroke. Cerebellum 11:264–271, doi:10.1007/s12311-011-0307-9, pmid:21842246.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Christensen A,
    2. Ilg W,
    3. Giese MA
    (2011) Spatiotemporal tuning of the facilitation of biological motion perception by concurrent motor execution. J Neurosci 31:3493–3499, doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4277-10.2011, pmid:21368061.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Christensen A,
    2. Giese MA,
    3. Sultan F,
    4. Mueller OM,
    5. Goericke SL,
    6. Ilg W,
    7. Timmann D
    (2014) An intact action-perception coupling depends on the integrity of the cerebellum. J Neurosci 34:6707–6716, doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3276-13.2014, pmid:24806697.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    1. Jokisch D,
    2. Troje NF,
    3. Koch B,
    4. Schwarz M,
    5. Daum I
    (2005) Differential involvement of the cerebellum in biological and coherent motion perception. Eur J Neurosci 21:3439–3446, doi:10.1111/j.1460-9568.2005.04145.x, pmid:16026481.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Timmann D,
    2. Konczak J,
    3. Ilg W,
    4. Donchin O,
    5. Hermsdörfer J,
    6. Gizewski ER,
    7. Schoch B
    (2009) Current advances in lesion-symptom mapping of the human cerebellum. Neuroscience 162:836–851, doi:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2009.01.040, pmid:19409233.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Wolpert DM,
    2. Flanagan JR
    (2001) Motor prediction. Curr Biol 11:R729–R732, doi:10.1016/S0960-9822(01)00432-8, pmid:11566114.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Neuroscience: 34 (34)
Journal of Neuroscience
Vol. 34, Issue 34
20 Aug 2014
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Advertising (PDF)
  • Ed Board (PDF)
Email

Thank you for sharing this Journal of Neuroscience article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Is Action-Perception Coupling Improved with Delay in Patients with Focal Cerebellar Lesions?
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of Neuroscience
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Journal of Neuroscience.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
View Full Page PDF
Citation Tools
Is Action-Perception Coupling Improved with Delay in Patients with Focal Cerebellar Lesions?
Wouter Hoogkamer, Pieter Meyns
Journal of Neuroscience 20 August 2014, 34 (34) 11175-11176; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2218-14.2014

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Request Permissions
Share
Is Action-Perception Coupling Improved with Delay in Patients with Focal Cerebellar Lesions?
Wouter Hoogkamer, Pieter Meyns
Journal of Neuroscience 20 August 2014, 34 (34) 11175-11176; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2218-14.2014
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Responses to this article

Respond to this article

Jump to comment:

No eLetters have been published for this article.

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Parabrachial Projections to PAG-RVM Axis May Promote Placebo Hypoalgesia and Nocebo Hyperalgesia
  • Differential Dopamine Dynamics in Adolescents and Adults
  • Complementing Neuroregeneration: Deciphering the Role of Neuro-Immune Interactions in CNS Repair
Show more Journal Club
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Facebook
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on Twitter
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on LinkedIn
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Youtube
  • Follow our RSS feeds

Content

  • Early Release
  • Current Issue
  • Issue Archive
  • Collections

Information

  • For Authors
  • For Advertisers
  • For the Media
  • For Subscribers

About

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact
(JNeurosci logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2022 by the Society for Neuroscience.
JNeurosci Online ISSN: 1529-2401

The ideas and opinions expressed in JNeurosci do not necessarily reflect those of SfN or the JNeurosci Editorial Board. Publication of an advertisement or other product mention in JNeurosci should not be construed as an endorsement of the manufacturer’s claims. SfN does not assume any responsibility for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from or related to any use of any material contained in JNeurosci.