TO THE EDITOR: In their Perspective article, Heroux et al. (1) argue that detection, discrimination, and matching proprioceptive test methods are in a single frame of reference and thus low-level assessments, whereas high-level proprioception has multiple frames of reference. We reviewed the methods from a neuropsychophysical perspective (2) and classified them as “imposed” or “obtained” proprioception in our Letter to the Editor of Journal of Applied Physiology (3). One problem with Heroux et al.’s (1) “low-level/high-level” approach to proprioception and function is that to adequately test “low-level” proprioception, it is necessary to take normal function into account and consider ecological validity (2). To be valid, a test situation must look like real life, where “low-level” is also “high-level,” because few functional tasks are carried out blindfolded as “low-level” proprioception tests often are. Removing vision during testing is intended to make them “pure” tests of proprioception, but this can generate other problems.
|Number of pages||2|
|Journal||Journal of applied physiology (Bethesda, Md. : 1985)|
|Publication status||Published - 1 Sep 2022|