JN AJP: Gastrointestinal and Liver Physiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


J Neurophysiol (February 16, 2005). doi:10.1152/jn.01168.2004
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
94/1/395    most recent
01168.2004v2
01168.2004v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (9)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Miyazaki, M.
Right arrow Articles by Nakajima, Y.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Miyazaki, M.
Right arrow Articles by Nakajima, Y.
Submitted on November 11, 2004
Accepted on February 13, 2005

Testing Bayesian models of human coincidence timing

Makoto Miyazaki*, Daichi Nozaki, and Yasoichi Nakajima

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: miyazaki_mkt{at}yahoo.co.jp.

A sensorimotor control task often requires an accurate estimation of the timing of the arrival of an external target (e.g., when hitting a pitched ball). Conventional studies of human timing processes have ignored the stochastic features of target timing: e.g., the speed of the pitched ball is not generally constant, but is variable. Interestingly, based on Bayesian theory, it was recently shown that the human sensorimotor system achieves the optimal estimation by integrating sensory information with prior knowledge of the probabilistic structure of the target variation (Kording et al. 2004; Kording and Wolpert 2004). In this study, we tested whether Bayesian integration is also implemented while performing a coincidence-timing type of sensorimotor task by manipulating the trial-by-trial variability (i.e., the prior distribution) of the target timing. As a result, within several hundred trials of learning, subjects were able to generate systematic timing behavior according to the width of the prior distribution, as predicted by the optimal Bayesian model. Considering the previous studies demonstrating that the human sensorimotor system uses Bayesian integration in spacing and force-grading tasks, our result indicates that Bayesian integration is fundamental to all aspects of human sensorimotor control. Moreover, it was noteworthy that the subjects could adjust their behavior after the prior distribution was switched from wide to narrow or vice versa, but the adjustment was slower when the prior distribution was switched from wide to narrow. Based on a comparison with observations in a previous study, we discuss the flexibility and adaptability of Bayesian sensorimotor learning.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J. Neurosci.Home page
D. W. Franklin and D. M. Wolpert
Specificity of Reflex Adaptation for Task-Relevant Variability
J. Neurosci., December 24, 2008; 28(52): 14165 - 14175.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
The International Journal of Robotics ResearchHome page
A. Pressman, L. J. Welty, A. Karniel, and F. A. Mussa-Ivaldi
Perception of Delayed Stiffness
The International Journal of Robotics Research, November 1, 2007; 26(11-12): 1191 - 1203.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
J. Neurosci.Home page
H. Tassinari, T. E. Hudson, and M. S. Landy
Combining Priors and Noisy Visual Cues in a Rapid Pointing Task
J. Neurosci., October 4, 2006; 26(40): 10154 - 10163.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
Visit Other APS Journals Online
Copyright © 2005 by the The American Physiological Society.