It is very interesting that we all observed global (non-specific) suppression across mice, monkeys, and humans in touch, audition, and the vestibular sense, and we also observed (stronger) attenuation specific to the predicted self-generated sensations.
04.03.2026 07:08
π 2
π 0
π¬ 0
π 0
I think this could be the case for the moving limb - but my point is that the suppression is *global* and nonspecific to sensory feedback: both self- and externally generated stimuli (vibration) are suppressed (before contact). This is why I am asking for the role of prediction/fwd models here.
04.03.2026 07:08
π 2
π 0
π¬ 3
π 0
We interpreted this as indicating that, in the absence of vision, the estimated state (i.e., position) of the effector (right hand) and the target (left hand) is noisier, resulting in a less precise prediction of the time of contact between the hands and smaller temporal modulation.
04.03.2026 06:59
π 0
π 0
π¬ 0
π 0
When we manipulated vision, we observed that the linear decrease between touch and time with vision (Bays & Wolpert) was reduced when vision was blocked: flatter slopes and smaller intercepts. We also found that greater endpoint variability was associated with flatter slopes and lower intercepts.
04.03.2026 06:59
π 0
π 0
π¬ 1
π 0
OSF
Thank you! Yes, we cite Colino (2017). Actually when preparing our pre-registration for our vision/no-vision manipulation, we found studies reporting effects in both directions: osf.io/z2wju/overview
04.03.2026 06:59
π 1
π 0
π¬ 1
π 0
Vision FineβTunes Predictions of Bimanual SelfβTouch
When we move to touch ourselves, our somatosensory perception is gradually attenuated due to the predictions of the internal forward models about the somatosensory consequences of our movements. Here...
You might also be interested in our recent study (on self-touch!) with 2 prereg. experiments and manipulation of vision, where we find a modulation similar to the one reported by Bays&Wolpert with gradually increasing (not decreasing) attenuation during mvm: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/...
01.03.2026 06:53
π 2
π 0
π¬ 1
π 0
This is what I do not understand: how is your proposal (suppression is due to prediction) supported within your paradigm?
01.03.2026 06:43
π 1
π 0
π¬ 1
π 0
You discuss the integration of tactile feedback in your paper, but the external vibration is not feedback, right? You state that you use it as a proxy, but how can a vibration serve as a proxy for sensory feedback during reaching? Shouldn't the brain use the sensory feedback for state estimation?
01.03.2026 06:43
π 0
π 0
π¬ 1
π 0
You have a vibration that is not predicted by the forward model (as you say) but is nevertheless suppressed, and at the same time you refer to prediction and a forward model to explain that suppression. Isn't that contradictory?
01.03.2026 06:43
π 0
π 0
π¬ 1
π 0
Any thoughts about these two questions?
@fatatiti.bsky.social
@dominikstrb.bsky.social
@c-rothkopf.bsky.social
27.02.2026 23:34
π 3
π 0
π¬ 1
π 0
(2) Also any thoughts on why the curve in (b) looks different when one reaches toward their own body? Bays&Wolpert(Cur Biol, 2005) showed that attenuation actually increases as the movement unfolds. This is what we find in Cemeljic(2025,2026). Do you think it is reaching towards a screen vs body?
27.02.2026 12:10
π 0
π 0
π¬ 1
π 0
But (1) why would external vibrations be "predicted" because of the reaching movement of the limb? I always struggle with this assumption in tactile suppression. Do you assume that the external vibrations during movement are being "mistaken" for sensory feedback of movement?
27.02.2026 12:10
π 0
π 0
π¬ 1
π 1
Hi Fabian, interesting work, thank you! I understand that the pattern you describe applies to externally generated stimuli during a reaching movement, rather than to self-generated stimuli that result from the movement itself.
27.02.2026 12:10
π 6
π 0
π¬ 2
π 0
New paper out from @noacemeljic.bsky.social at @ejneuroscience.bsky.social ! He studied whether the availability of visual input changes the temporal modulation of tactile perception during movement! πππ (spoiler: and it does!)
26.02.2026 09:54
π 9
π 0
π¬ 0
π 0
Matching sounds to shapes: Evidence of the bouba-kiki effect in naΓ―ve baby chicks
Humans across multiple languages spontaneously associate the nonwords βkikiβ and βboubaβ with spiky and round shapes, respectively, a phenomenon named the bouba-kiki effect. To explore the origin of t...
βHumans across multiple languages spontaneously associate the nonwords kiki & bouba with spiky & round shapes, respectively...We tested the bouba-kiki effect in baby chickens. Similar to humans, they spontaneously chose a spiky shape when hearing a kiki sound & a round shape when hearing a bouba.βπ²π§ͺ
19.02.2026 19:20
π 338
π 125
π¬ 13
π 41
New paper from the lab: we look at changes in cerebellar grey matter with aging and how it can account for changes in cerebellar function.
1. Cerebellar volumes from all regions decrease similarly
2. Topological organization stayed similar
3. No structure-function relationship was found
15.02.2026 20:29
π 11
π 3
π¬ 0
π 1
Over 100 confirmed visitors to this conference, and there is still room to join for next week! Nijmegen, NL, 5-6 Feb
28.01.2026 08:48
π 9
π 8
π¬ 0
π 0
Are you interested in a MSc/PhD in human sensorimotor neuroscience? Learn to design experiments, analyze data, read & write papers, present at conferences, & work with a vibrant group of students & faculty in a world-class research environment.
#neuroskyence #psychscisky
gribblelab.org/join.html
17.12.2025 12:30
π 22
π 16
π¬ 1
π 1
Search Jobs - University Affairs
Great news! We are looking for an NHP neuroscientist as the assistant professor level. We have no preconceived ideas -- looking for the most exciting research going. If you have any questions, please reach out. universityaffairs.ca/search-jobs/...
10.12.2025 15:01
π 34
π 46
π¬ 1
π 4
Academic publishing is broken due to for-profit actors. Time to explore alternatives as researchers β A Diamond Open Access conference, Feb 5-6, 2026 in Nijmegen NL.
Free registration (limited seats): horizondiamond.nl
Let's build a sustainable publishing infrastructure together.
21.11.2025 09:21
π 32
π 20
π¬ 1
π 5
On a roll with papers this week. PNAS paper with @michealdebarra.bsky.social giving some evidence to the idea that people turn to the supernatural because of uncertainty about causal processes. BONUS of curing whooping cough with donkeys and warts with snails π
02.12.2025 13:48
π 15
π 8
π¬ 1
π 0
How I contributed to rejecting one of my favorite papers of all time
I believe we should talk about the mistakes we make.
How I contributed to rejecting one of my favorite papers of all times, Yes, I teach it to students daily, and refer to it in lots of papers. Sorry. open.substack.com/pub/kording/...
02.12.2025 01:27
π 119
π 28
π¬ 1
π 10