skip to main content
10.1145/3401956.3404232acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmocoConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper

Neural Connectivity Evolution during Adaptive Learning with and without Proprioception

Authors Info & Claims
Published:15 July 2020Publication History

ABSTRACT

Understanding brain connectivity patterns that may spontaneously emerge in response to biofeedback training remains of great interest to neuroscientists. Along those lines, Brain Computer Interfaces (BCI) mediated by EEG signals that dynamically evolve as the user attempts to control a cursor on the screen, has helped identify brain areas recruited during the learning process. There is an adaptive process that takes place between the computer algorithm and the solution that the brain arrives at to mentally control the instructed cursor direction through intentional thoughts. Using new personalized techniques, we here address how different participants learn during this co-adaptive process, in which bodily motions are curtailed in favor of mental motion. First, the person uses mental imagery of directional movements to attempt the cursor control, but as the computer algorithm and the brain work together to gain accuracy, this mental imagery reportedly reaches a different level of abstraction to the point when the participants are mentally controlling the external computer cursor, yet no longer imagining the movement direction. We compared the evolution of a participant without proprioception owing to neuronopathy, to that of participants with intact afferent nerves and found fundamentally different patterns of activation. In the former, the connectivity patterns were far higher and distributed across the entire brain during the initial stages of learning, along with the changes across the learning stages being more pronounced in contrast to the other participants. We infer from this result that in the absence of kinesthetic reafference, heavy reliance on other senses like vision and hearing, may endow the brain with higher capacity to handle the excess cognitive load.

References

  1. M. Kawato and D.M. Wolpert. 1998. Internal models for motor control. Novartis Foundation Symposia. 218: p. 291--304; discussion 304--7.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. D.M. Wolpert and M. Kawato. 1998. Multiple paired forward and inverse models for motor control. Neural Networks. 11(7--8): p. 1317--29.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. D. M Wolpert, R.C. Miall, and M. Kawato. 1998. Internal models in the cerebellum. Trends in Cognitive Science. 2(9): p. 338--47.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. E. Von Holst and H. Mittelstaedt. 1950. The principle of reafference: Interactions between the central nervous system and the peripheral organs. In: Perceptual Processing: Stimulus equivalence and pattern recognition (Dodwell PC, ed). pp 41--72. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. E.B. Torres. 2018. Objective Biometric Methods for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Nervous System Disorders. Elsevier Science.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. J. Cole. 1995. Pride and a daily marathon. 1st MIT Press ed. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. p. 194.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. J. Cole. 1998. Rehabilitation after sensory neuronopathy syndrome. Journal of The Royal Society of Medicine 91:30--32.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. J. Cole and J. Paillard. 1995. Living without touch and peripheral information about body position and movement: studies with deafferented subjects. In: The body and self (Bermudez JL, Marcel AJ, eds), p. 245--266. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. J. Cole and E. M. Sedgwick. 1992. The perceptions of force and of movement in a man without large myelinated sensory afferents below the neck. Journal of Physiology. 449:p. 503--515.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. J. Cole, W. L. Merton, G. Barrett, H. A. Katifi, and R. D. Treede.1995. Evoked potentials in subject with a large-fibre sensory neuronopathy below the neck. Canadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology. 73:p. 234--245.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. S. Balakrishnan and D. Madigan. 2008. Algorithms for sparse linear classifiers in the massive data setting. Journal of Machine Learning Research 9:313--337.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Y. Ding and R. F. Harrison. 2011. A sparse multinomial probit model for classification. Pattern Analysis and Applications 146:p. 47--55.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. K. Choi and E.B. Torres. 2013. Intentional signal in prefrontal cortex generalizes across different sensory modalities. Journal of Neurophysiology. 112 (1): p. 61--80.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. S. Makeig, S. Debener, J. Onton, and A. Delorme. 2004. Mining event-related brain dynamics. Trends in Cognitive Science 8:204--210Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. A.J. Bell and T. Sejnowski. 1997. The "independent components" of natural scenes are edge filters. Vision Research. Volume 37, Issue 23, December 1997, Pages 3327--3338.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. J. Ryu and E.B. Torres. 2018. Characterization of Sensory-Motor Behavior Under Cognitive Load Using a New Statistical Platform for Studies of Embodied Cognition. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience.12: p. 116.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. J. Lleonart, J. Salat, and G.J Torres. 2000. Removing allometric effects of body size in morphological analysis. Journal of Theoretical Biology. 205, 85--93.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. O. Sporns. Networks of the Brain. 2010. MIT PressGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. J. Ryu, J. Vero, and E.B.Torres. 2017. Methods for Tracking Dynamically Coupled Brain-Body Activities during Natural Movement. In Proceedings of MOCO'17. London, UnitedKingdom, June 28--30.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. S. Aydorea, D. Pantazis, and R.M Leahy. 2013. A note on the phase locking value and its properties. NeuroImage. 74: p. 231--244Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. M. Xia, J. Wang, and Y. He. 2013. BrainNet Viewer: A Network Visualization Tool for Human Brain Connectomics. PLoS ONE 8(7).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. G. Monge. 1781. Memoire sur la theorie des deblais et des remblais. In Histoire de l'Academie Royale des Science; avec les Memoired de Mathematique et de Physique. De L'imprimerie Royale: Paris, France. 1781.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Y. Rubner, C. Tomasi, L. J. Guibas. 1998. Metric for Distributions with Applications to Image Databases. In Proceedings of the ICCV. Bombay, India, 4--7 January 1998.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Neural Connectivity Evolution during Adaptive Learning with and without Proprioception

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Other conferences
        MOCO '20: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Movement and Computing
        July 2020
        205 pages
        ISBN:9781450375054
        DOI:10.1145/3401956

        Copyright © 2020 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 15 July 2020

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • short-paper
        • Research
        • Refereed limited

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate50of110submissions,45%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader