Reaching out for an object is often described as consisting of two components that are based on different visual information. Information about the object's position and orientation guides the hand to the object, while information about the object's shape and size determines how the fingers move relative to the thumb to grasp it. We propose an alternative description, which consists of determining suitable positions on the object—on the basis of its shape, surface roughness, and so on—and then moving one's thumb and fingers more or less independently to these positions. We modeled this description using a minimum-jerk approach, whereby the finger and thumb approach their respective target positions approximately orthogonally to the surface. Our model predicts how experimental variables such as object size, movement speed, fragility, and required accuracy will influence the timing and size of the maximum aperture of the hand. An extensive review of experimental studies on grasping showed that the predicted influences correspond to human behavior.

One generally has the impression that one feels one's hand at the same location as one sees it. However, because our brain deals with possibly conflicting visual and proprioceptive information about hand position by combining it into an optimal estimate of the hand's location, mutual calibration is not necessary to achieve such a coherent percept. Does sensory integration nevertheless entail sensory calibration? We asked subjects to move their hand between visual targets. Blocks of trials without any visual feedback about their hand's position were alternated with blocks with veridical visual feedback. Whenever vision was removed, individual subjects' hands slowly drifted toward the same position to which they had drifted on previous blocks without visual feedback. The time course of the observed drift depended in a predictable manner (assuming optimal sensory combination) on the variable errors in the blocks with and without visual feedback. We conclude that the optimal use of unaligned sensory information, rather than changes within either of the senses or an accumulation of execution errors, is the cause of the frequently observed movement drift. The conclusion that seeing one's hand does not lead to an alignment between vision and proprioception has important consequences for the interpretation of previous work on visuomotor adaptation.adaptation ͉ motor control ͉ vision ͉ proprioception ͉ drift O ne generally has the impression that one feels one's hand at the same location as one sees it. This impression has formed the basis for many theories about the calibration of our senses (1, 2), about how movements are controlled (3), and about the formation of body schema (4). The visual estimate of the position of one's hand (relative to oneself) is based on the retinal position of the hand's image and the orientation of the eyes. The proprioceptive estimate is based on joint or limb angles. When information is available in both modalities, we combine these sources of information into one coherent idea of where our hand is relative to ourselves (5), as has been modeled successfully assuming an optimal combination of sensory information (6-8) (Fig. 1A). The optimal combination of information from multiple sensors is a weighted average, with weights based on the precision (the inverse of the variance, see Eq.

If a target toward which an individual moves his hand suddenly moves, he adjusts the movement of his hand accordingly. Does he use visual information on the target's velocity to anticipate where he will reach the target? These questions were addressed in the present study. Subjects (N = 6 in each of 4 experiments) were instructed to hit a disk with a rod as soon as it appeared on a screen. Trajectories of the hand toward stationary disks were compared with those toward disks that jumped leftward or rightward as soon as the subject's hand started moving toward the screen, and with those in which either the disk or the background started moving leftward or rightward. About 110 ms after the disk was suddenly displaced, the moving hand was diverted in the direction of the perturbation. When the background moved, the disk's perceived position shifted in the direction in which the background was moving, but the disk appeared to be moving in the opposite direction. When hitting such disks, subjects adjusted their movement in accordance with the perceived position, rather than moving their hand in the direction of the perceived motion in anticipation of the disk's future displacement. Thus, subjects did not use the perceived velocity to anticipate where they would reach the target but responded only to the change in position.

Ss were presented with spiders running from left to right at various velocities over a structured background. Motion of the background influenced the perceived velocity of the spider: Motion of the background in the opposite direction than the spider increased the perceived velocity. The perceived position of the spider was not influenced by background motion. Ss were asked to hit the spiders as quickly as possible. Fast spiders were hit with a higher velocity than slow spiders. The same effect was found if the spiders only differed in apparent velocity, induced by motion of the background. The trajectory of the hit was not influenced by motion of the background. The authors concluded that although velocity is nothing but the change of position in time, velocity and position are processed independently. Furthermore, these two separately processed sources of information are used in both perception and action. To make a goal-directed movement, our nervous system has to specify the position of the goal in one way or another. How this specification takes place is the subject of many studies. According to the cognitive approach (e.g., Paillard, 1991), an internal representation of the environment is built, and this representation is used by the motor system. According to the ecological approach (e.g., Lee & Young, 1986), no intermediate representation is assumed. In the latter view, an invariant is extracted from sensory signals for direct use in motor action. Both approaches leave open for debate which invariant or what kind of representation is used for which task. Many authors (e.g.

No abstract

To achieve perceptual alignment between a flashed target and a moving one, subjects typically require the flashed target to be aligned with a position that the moving target will only reach some time after the flash (the flash-lag effect). We examined how the magnitude of this misalignment changes near an abrupt change in velocity. The magnitude of the misalignment turns out to depend on the target's velocity after, rather than before, the flash. Thus, the misalignment cannot be caused by motion extrapolation. Neither can it be the inevitable consequence of a difference between the time it takes to process flashed and moving stimuli, because the magnitude of the misalignment is influenced by the extent to which subjects can anticipate the flash. We propose that it is the consequence of having to 'sample' the moving target's position in response to the flash.

Reaching out for an object is often described as consisting of two components that are based on different visual information. Information on the object's position and orientation guides the hand to the object, while information on the object's shape and size determines how the fingers move relative to the thumb to grasp it. We propose an alternative description, which consists of determining suitable positions on the object-on the basis of its shape, surface texture, and so on- and then moving one's thumb and fingers to these positions. This could lead to the same performance without requiring distinct visual information on the object's orientation or size. If so, an illusory change in size need not influence the distance between thumb and fingers when reaching out for an object. However, as the object's size is used to estimate its weight, the illusory change in size should influence the force that is exerted to lift the object. To find out whether this is so, eight subjects were asked to pick up brass disks from a fixed position straight in front of them. The illusory change in size was brought about by presenting five converging lines in two different configurations under the disks. As predicted, the illusion influenced the force used to lift the disks, but not the distance between the subjects' thumbs and fingers when reaching for the disks.

The movements that we make are variable. It is well established that at least a part of this variability is caused by noise in central motor planning. Here, we studied how the random effects of planning noise translate into changes in motor planning. Are the random effects independently added to a constant mean end point, or do they accumulate over movements? To distinguish between these possibilities, we examined repeated, discrete movements in various tasks in which the motor output could be decomposed into a task-relevant and a task-irrelevant component. We found in all tasks that the task-irrelevant component had a positive lag 1 autocorrelation, suggesting that the random effects of planning noise accumulate over movements. In contrast, the task-relevant component always had a lag 1 autocorrelation close to zero, which can be explained by effective trial-by-trial correction of motor planning on the basis of observed motor errors. Accumulation of the effects of planning noise is consistent with current insights into the stochastic nature of synaptic plasticity. It leads to motor exploration, which may subserve motor learning and performance optimization.