People make systematic errors when matching locations of an unseen index finger with the index finger of the other hand, or with a visual target. In this study, we present two experiments that test the consistency of such matching errors across different combinations of matching methods. In the first experiment, subjects had to move their unseen index fingers to visually presented targets. We examined the consistency between matching errors for the two hands and for different postures (hand above a board or below it). We found very little consistency: The matching error depends on the posture and differs between the hands. In the second experiment, we designed sets of tasks that involved the same matching configurations. For example, we compared matching errors when moving with the unseen index finger to a visual target, with errors when moving a visual target to the unseen index finger. We found that matching errors are not invertible. Furthermore, moving both index fingers to the same visual target results in a different mismatch between the hands than directly matching the two index fingers. We conclude that the errors that we make when matching locations cannot only arise from systematic mismatches between sensory representations of the positions of the fingers and of visually perceived space. We discuss how these results can be interpreted in terms of sensory transformations that depend on the movement that needs to be made.

No abstract

Two different ways to code a goal-directed movement have been proposed in the literature: vector coding and position coding. Assuming that the code is fine-tuned if a movement is immediately repeated, one can predict that repeating movements to the same endpoint will increase precision if movements are coded in terms of the position of the endpoint. Repeating the same movement vector at slightly different positions will increase precision if movements are coded in terms of vectors. Following this reasoning, Hudson and Landy (J Neurophys 108(10):2708–2716, 2012) found evidence for both types of coding when participants moved their hand over a table while the target and feedback were provided on a vertical screen. Do we also see evidence for both types of coding if participants repeat movements within a more natural visuo-motor mapping? To find out, we repeated the study of Hudson and Landy (J Neurophys 108(10):2708–2716, 2012), but our participants made movements directly to the targets. We compared the same movements embedded in blocks of repetitions of endpoints and blocks of repetitions of movement vectors. Within blocks, the movements were presented in a random order. We found no benefit of repeating either a position or a vector. We subsequently repeated the experiment with a similar mapping between movements and images to those used by Hudson and Landy and found that participants only clearly benefit from repeating a position. We conclude that repeating a position is particularly useful when dealing with unusual visuo-motor mappings.

The trajectories of arm movements toward visually defined targets are curved, even if participants try to move in a straight line. A factor contributing to this curvature may be that participants systematically misjudge the direction to the target, and try to achieve a straight path by always moving in the perceived direction of the target. If so, the relation between perception of direction and initial movement direction should not only be present for movements toward visually defined targets, but also when making movements toward haptically defined targets. To test whether this is so, we compared errors in the initial movement direction when moving as straight as possible toward haptically defined targets with errors in a pointer setting task toward the same targets. We found a modest correlation between perception of direction and initial movement direction for movements toward haptically defined targets. The amount of correlation depended on the geometry of the task.

No abstract