Decay in Visuomotor Representations During Manual Aiming

Binsted, Gordon; Rolheiser, Tyler; Chua, Romeo

doi:10.3200/jmbr.38.2.82-87

Cited by 29 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In accordance with the above-mentioned studies on the role of prefrontal cortex during accurate memory maintenance, we hypothesize that prefrontal event-related activity changes during the transition from visually guided to memory-guided force control. Previous behavioral work suggests that the temporal capacity of short-term visuomotor memory can range between 0.5 and 1.5 s during force production (Vaillancourt and Russell 2002) and can extend up to 2 s during pointing tasks (Binsted et al 2006;Elliott and Madalena 1987). As such, we expect to observe behavioral changes between 0.5 and 1.5 s during the subjects' memory-guided force production, and further predict that prefrontal activity changes before changes in behavior.…”

supporting

confidence: 56%

Spatiotemporal dynamics of brain activity during the transition from visually guided to memory-guided force control

Poon

Chin-Cottongim

Coombes

et al. 2012

Journal of Neurophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 56%

Spatiotemporal dynamics of brain activity during the transition from visually guided to memory-guided force control

Poon

Chin-Cottongim

Coombes

et al. 2012

Journal of Neurophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…22 pointed out that the illusion effects on movements that were reported by Franz (2001) and Van Donkelaar 15 might have been due to the absence of visual feedback of the moving arm 2, 22 . That is, in the absence of this feedback, visual information is most likely processed in the ventral stream since the memory trace in the dorsal stream is short-lasting as compared to the trace in the ventral stream (i.e., visual memory) 46 . This was supported by empirical evidence showing that when visual feedback was introduced during the task, an effect of the illusion on pointing 8 and grasping 7 was not found.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ebbinghaus figures that deceive the eye do not necessarily deceive the hand

Knol¹,

Huys²,

Sarrazin³

et al. 2017

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In support of the visual stream dissociation hypothesis, which states that distinct visual streams serve vision-for-perception and vision-for-action, visual size illusions were reported over 20 years ago to ‘deceive the eye but not the hand’. Ever since, inconclusive results and contradictory interpretations have accumulated. Therefore, we investigated the effects of the Ebbinghaus figure on repetitive aiming movements with distinct dynamics. Participants performed a Fitts’ task in which Ebbinghaus figures served as targets. We systematically varied the three parameters which have been shown to influence the perceived size of the Ebbinghaus figure’s target circle, namely the size of the target, its distance to the context circles and the size of the context circles. This paper shows that movement is significantly affected by the context size, but, in contrast to perception, not by the other two parameters. This is especially prominent in the approach phase of the movement towards the target, regardless of the dynamics. To reconcile the findings, we argue that different informational variables are used for size perception and the visual control of movements irrespective of whether certain variables induce (perceptual) illusions.

show abstract

“…Binsted, Rolheiser, and Chua (2006) examined the time course of the decay of the remembered location of a target. Participants were asked to repeatedly tap between two targets presented in the transverse plane.…”

Section: Model-based Control: Is An Internal Model Sufficient?mentioning

confidence: 99%

On-line and model-based approaches to the visual control of action

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two general approaches to the visual control of action have emerged in last few decades, known as the on-line and model-based approaches. The key difference between them is whether action is controlled by current visual information or on the basis of an internal world model. In this paper, we evaluate three hypotheses: strong on-line control, strong model-based control, and a hybrid solution that combines on-line control with weak off-line strategies. We review experimental research on the control of locomotion and manual actions, which indicates that (a) an internal world model is neither sufficient nor necessary to control action at normal levels of performance; (b) current visual information is necessary and sufficient to control action at normal levels; and (c) under certain conditions (e.g. occlusion) action is controlled by less accurate, simple strategies such as heuristics, visual-motor mappings, or spatial memory. We conclude that the strong model-based hypothesis is not sustainable. Action is normally controlled on-line when current information is available, consistent with the strong on-line control hypothesis. In exceptional circumstances, action is controlled by weak, context-specific, off-line strategies. This hybrid solution is comprehensive, parsimonious, and able to account for a variety of tasks under a range of visual conditions.

show abstract

Decay in Visuomotor Representations During Manual Aiming

Cited by 29 publications

References 28 publications

Spatiotemporal dynamics of brain activity during the transition from visually guided to memory-guided force control

Spatiotemporal dynamics of brain activity during the transition from visually guided to memory-guided force control

Ebbinghaus figures that deceive the eye do not necessarily deceive the hand

On-line and model-based approaches to the visual control of action

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About