Abstract
It is unclear how explicit knowledge of an externally imposed mismatch between visual and proprioceptive cues of hand position affects perceptual recalibration. The Bayesian causal inference framework might suggest such knowledge should abolish the visual and proprioceptive recalibration that occurs when individuals perceive these cues as coming from the same source (their hand), while the visuomotor adaptation literature suggests explicit knowledge of a cue conflict does not eliminate implicit compensatory processes. Here we compared visual and proprioceptive recalibration in three groups with varying levels of knowledge about the visuo-proprioceptive cue conflict. All participants estimated the position of visual, proprioceptive, or combined targets related to their left index fingertip, with a 70 mm visuo-proprioceptive offset gradually imposed. Groups 1, 2, and 3 received no information, medium information, and high information, respectively, about the offset. Information was manipulated using instructional and visual cues. All groups performed the task similarly at baseline in terms of variance, weighting, and integration. Results suggest the three groups recalibrated vision and proprioception differently, but there was no difference in variance or weighting. Participants who received only instructional cues about the mismatch (Group 2) did not recalibrate less, on average, than participants provided no information about the mismatch (Group 1). However, participants provided instructional cues and extra visual cues of their hands during the perturbation (Group 3) demonstrated significantly less recalibration than other groups. These findings are consistent with the idea that instructional cues alone are insufficient to override participants' intrinsic belief in common cause and reduce recalibration.