Can You Hear That Peak? Utilization of Auditory and Visual Feedback at Peak Limb Velocity

Abstract

Purpose: At rest, the central nervous system combines and integrates multisensory cues to yield an optimal percept. When engaging in action, the relative weighing of sensory modalities has been shown to be altered. Because the timing of peak velocity is the critical moment in some goal-directed movements (e.g., overarm throwing), the current study sought to test whether visual and auditory cues are optimally integrated at that specific kinematic marker when it is the critical part of the trajectory. Methods: Participants performed an upper-limb movement in which they were required to reach their peak limb velocity when the right index finger intersected a virtual target (i.e., a flinging movement). Brief auditory, visual, or audiovisual feedback (i.e., 20 ms in duration) was provided to participants at peak limb velocity. Performance was assessed primarily through the resultant position of peak limb velocity and the variability of that position. Results: Relative to when no feedback was provided, auditory feedback significantly reduced the resultant endpoint variability of the finger position at peak limb velocity. However, no such reductions were found for the visual or audiovisual feedback conditions. Further, providing both auditory and visual cues concurrently also failed to yield the theoretically predicted improvements in endpoint variability. Conclusions: Overall, the central nervous system can make significant use of an auditory cue but may not optimally integrate a visual and auditory cue at peak limb velocity, when peak velocity is the critical part of the trajectory.

Keywords::

• Audition
• goal-directed reaching
• multisensory integration
• vision

Funding

This research was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the Canada Foundation for Innovation, the Ontario Research Fund, and a Graduate Student Fellowship from the University of Toronto.

Notes

¹ This pattern of results was replicated when conducting individuals' ANOVAs for movement amplitude along the primary (y) and secondary (x, z) movement axes, Fs ≤  1.76, ps ≥  .13.

² This pattern of results was also consistent with individual ANOVAs conducted along the three movement axes, Fs ≥  3.16, ps ≤  .05. In addition, Tukey's post-hoc contrasts performed for the movement axes also revealed a significant difference between the auditory and no-feedback conditions (y-axis HSD = 12.89 mm, p = .03; x-axis HSD = 6.83 mm, p = .01; z-axis HSD = 13.05 mm, p = .03).

³ This pattern of results was replicated when conducting individual contrasts across the primary (y) and secondary (x, z) movement axes (i.e., ts ≥ 2.76, ps ≤ .02).