Patients with lesions to the intraparietal cortex show greater proprioceptive realignment after prism adaptation:Evidence from open-loop pointing and manual straight ahead

Reaching toward a target viewed through laterally refracting prisms results in adaptation of both visual and (limb) proprioceptive spatial representations. Common ways to measure adaptation after-effect are to ask a person to point straight ahead with their eyes closed ("manual straight ahead", MSA), or to a seen target using their unseen hand ("open-loop pointing", OLP). MSA measures changes in proprioception only, whereas OLP measures the combined visual and proprioceptive shift. The behavioural and neurological mechanisms of prism adaptation have come under scrutiny following reports of reduced hemispatial neglect in patients following this procedure. We present evidence suggesting that shifts in proprioceptive spatial representations induced by prism adaptation are larger following lesions to the intraparietal cortex - a brain region that integrates retinotopic visual signals with signals of eye position in the orbit and that is activated during prism adaptation. Six healthy participants and six patients with unilateral intraparietal cortex lesions underwent prism adaptation. After-effects were measured with OLP and MSA. After-effects of control participants were larger when measured with OLP than with MSA, consistent with previous research and with the additional contribution of visual shift to OLP after-effects. However, patients' OLP shifts were not significantly different to their MSA shifts. We conclude that, for the patients, correction of pointing errors during prism adaptation involved proportionally more changes to arm proprioception than for controls. Since lesions to intraparietal cortex led to enhanced realignment of arm proprioceptive representations, our results indirectly suggest that the intraparietal cortex could be key for visual realignment.</p

The effect of prism adaptation on state estimates of eye position in the orbit

Prism adaptation (PA) after-effects are assessed using tests that measure changes in sensorimotor systems. After-effects on pointing without feedback to a visual target (open loop pointing – OLP) are traditionally described as being larger than those measured by straight ahead pointing (SAP) with eyes closed, and the difference between them is attributed to a shift in visual localisation. However, neither differences between OLP and SAP, nor shifts in perceptual judgement of visual straight ahead (VSA), are consistently reported. Moreover, since very few studies have directly recorded direction of gaze, an effect of PA on the state estimate of gaze direction has not been reliably documented. The current research aimed to isolate the effects of PA on state estimates of eye position. We measured sensorimotor after-effects through common (OLP, SAP, and VSA) measures, and also recorded eye position and additional after-effect measures to interrogate changes to the oculomotor system and how these might relate to other measures of sensorimotor change. To ascertain if PA's effects on estimates of eye position could be attributed to eye muscle potentiation, we compared the effects of PA to sustained gaze deviation without adaptation. PA induced no effect on visual straight-ahead and no change in direction of gaze, when measured while positioning a target, looking straight ahead in the dark, or looking toward the passively positioned and occluded unexposed hand. We also found that after-effects measured by SAP with the eyes open were larger than SAP with the eyes closed and equal to those observed with OLP. The findings challenge the concept that total adaptation after-effect is a direct sum of arm proprioceptive and visual after-effects as conventionally measured, and suggest that the oculomotor system is altered by prism adaptation only in interaction with an arm motor command when vision is available

Patients with lesions to the intraparietal cortex show greater proprioceptive realignment after prism adaptation:Evidence from open-loop pointing and manual straight ahead

Reaching toward a target viewed through laterally refracting prisms results in adaptation of both visual and (limb) proprioceptive spatial representations. Common ways to measure adaptation after-effect are to ask a person to point straight ahead with their eyes closed ("manual straight ahead", MSA), or to a seen target using their unseen hand ("open-loop pointing", OLP). MSA measures changes in proprioception only, whereas OLP measures the combined visual and proprioceptive shift. The behavioural and neurological mechanisms of prism adaptation have come under scrutiny following reports of reduced hemispatial neglect in patients following this procedure. We present evidence suggesting that shifts in proprioceptive spatial representations induced by prism adaptation are larger following lesions to the intraparietal cortex - a brain region that integrates retinotopic visual signals with signals of eye position in the orbit and that is activated during prism adaptation. Six healthy participants and six patients with unilateral intraparietal cortex lesions underwent prism adaptation. After-effects were measured with OLP and MSA. After-effects of control participants were larger when measured with OLP than with MSA, consistent with previous research and with the additional contribution of visual shift to OLP after-effects. However, patients' OLP shifts were not significantly different to their MSA shifts. We conclude that, for the patients, correction of pointing errors during prism adaptation involved proportionally more changes to arm proprioception than for controls. Since lesions to intraparietal cortex led to enhanced realignment of arm proprioceptive representations, our results indirectly suggest that the intraparietal cortex could be key for visual realignment.</p

A registered re-examination of the effects of leftward prism adaptation on landmark judgements in healthy people

It has long been known that active adaptation to a shift of the visual field, caused by laterally-displacing prisms, induces short-term sensorimotor aftereffects. More recent evidence suggests that prism adaptation may also stimulate higher-level changes in spatial cognition, which can modify the spatial biases of healthy people. The first reported, and most replicated, higher-level aftereffect is a rightward shift in the point of subjective equality (PSE) for a perceptual bisection task (the landmark task), following adaptation to leftward prisms. A recent meta-analysis suggests that this visuospatial aftereffect should be robustly induced by an extended period of adaptation to strong leftward prisms (15°, ∼26.8 prism dioptres). However, we have been unable to replicate this effect, suggesting that the effect size estimated from prior literature might be over-optimistic. This Registered Report compared visuospatial aftereffects on the landmark task for a 15° leftward prism adaptation group (n = 102) against a sham-adaptation control group (n = 102). The effect size for the comparison was Cohen's d = .27, 95% CI [-.01, .55], which did not pass the criterion set for significance. A Bayesian analysis indicated that the data were more than 4.1 times as likely under the null than under an informed experimental hypothesis. Exploratory analyses showed no evidence for a rightward shift of landmark judgements in the prism group considered alone, and no relationship between sensorimotor and visuospatial aftereffects. We further found no support for previous suggestions that visuospatial aftereffects are modulated by a person's baseline bias (leftward or rightward) for the landmark task. Null findings are also presented for a preliminary group of 62 participants adapted to 15° leftward prisms, and an additional group of 29 participants adapted to 10° leftward prisms. We do not rule out the possibility that leftward prisms might induce higher-level visuospatial aftereffects in healthy people, but we should be more sceptical about this claim

Connectivity between the superior colliculus and the amygdala in humans and macaque monkeys:Virtual dissection with probabilistic DTI tractography

It has been suggested that some cortically blind patients can process the emotional valence of visual stimuli via a fast, subcortical pathway from the superior colliculus (SC) that reaches the amygdala via the pulvinar. We provide in vivo evidence for connectivity between the SC and the amygdala via the pulvinar in both humans and rhesus macaques. Probabilistic diffusion tensor imaging tractography revealed a streamlined path that passes dorsolaterally through the pulvinar before arcing rostrally to traverse above the temporal horn of the lateral ventricle and connect to the lateral amygdala. To obviate artifactual connectivity with crossing fibers of the stria terminalis, the stria was also dissected. The putative streamline between the SC and amygdala traverses above the temporal horn dorsal to the stria terminalis and is positioned medial to it in humans and lateral to it in monkeys. The topography of the streamline was examined in relation to lesion anatomy in five patients who had previously participated in behavioral experiments studying the processing of emotionally valenced visual stimuli. The pulvinar lesion interrupted the streamline in two patients who had exhibited contralesional processing deficits and spared the streamline in three patients who had no deficit. Although not definitive, this evidence supports the existence of a subcortical pathway linking the SC with the amygdala in primates. It also provides a necessary bridge between behavioral data obtained in future studies of neurological patients, and any forthcoming evidence from more invasive techniques, such as anatomical tracing studies and electrophysiological investigations only possible in nonhuman species

Corrigendum to “No short-term treatment effect of prism adaptation for spatial neglect: An inclusive meta-analysis” [Neuropsychologia 189 (2023) 108566]

The authors regret that there was an error on page 12, Fig. 4, Panel B of our manuscript. Panel B should have had the outlier study, Hreha et al. (2018), excluded. The data point for this study has been excluded, but this exclusion was not reflected in the study labels. Instead, the label for the study by Nys et al. (2008) was mistakenly omitted and the data points were improperly aligned with their labels. We would like to provide Fig. 4. Panel B with the corrected labels below.[Formula presented] The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused. The error has no bearing on the results or conclusions of the study

No short-term treatment effect of prism adaptation for spatial neglect: An inclusive meta-analysis

Despite 25 years of research on the topic, there is still no consensus on whether prism adaptation is an effective therapy for visuospatial neglect. We have addressed this question through a meta-analysis of the most well-controlled studies on the topic. Our main meta-analytic model included studies with a placebo/sham/treatment-as-usual control group from which data from right hemisphere stroke patients and left-sided neglect could be aggregated. The short-term treatment effects on the two commonly used standard tests for neglect, the conventional Behavioural Inattention Test (BIT-C) and cancellation test scores were combined into one random effect model justified by the fact that 89% of the BIT-C score is determined by cancellation tasks. With this approach, we were able to obtain a larger and more homogeneous dataset than previous meta-analyses: sixteen studies including 430 patients. No evidence for beneficial effects of prism adaptation was found. The secondary meta-analysis including data from the Catherine Bergego Scale, a functional measure of activities of daily living, also found no evidence for the therapeutic effects of prism adaptation, although half as many studies were available for this analysis. The results were consistent after the removal of influential outliers, after studies with high risk-of-bias were excluded, and when an alternative measure of effect size was considered. These results do not support the routine use of prism adaptation as a therapy for spatial neglect