Differential use of distance and location information for spatial localization

Abrams, Richard A.; Landgraf, Jonathan Z.

doi:10.3758/bf03210875

Cited by 98 publications

(52 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…More specifically, they have shown that overestimating target velocity has effects on both motor and perceptual responses. Analogous findings have recently been demonstrated for several types of visual illusion under certain conditions (e.g., Abrams & Landgraf, 1990;Gentilucci, Chieffi, Daprati, Saetti, & Toni, 1996;Mack, Heuer, Villardi, & Chambers, 1985;Post & Welch, 1996). The interesting aspect ofthe present results is that the overestimation of target velocity occurred only because of the active process of generating pursuit responses during the adaptation period.…”

Section: Control Adaptation O Comparison Of Smooth Pursuit and Velocisupporting

confidence: 67%

Changes in motion perception following oculomotor smooth pursuit adaptation

Donkelaar¹,

Miall²,

Stein³

2000

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The hypothesis that oculomotor smooth pursuit (SP) adaptation is accompanied by alterations in velocity perception was tested by assessing coherence thresholds, using random-dot kinematograms before and after the adaptation paradigm, The results showed that the sensitivity to coherent motion at 10 deglsec (the initial target velocity during adaptation) was reduced after the SP adaptation, ending up at a level that was between those normally observed for velocities of 10 and 20 deg/sec. This is consistent with an overestimation of the velocity of the coherent motion and suggests that SP adaptation alters not only the oculomotor output, but also the perception of target velocity.

show abstract

Section: Control Adaptation O Comparison Of Smooth Pursuit and Velocisupporting

confidence: 67%

Changes in motion perception following oculomotor smooth pursuit adaptation

Donkelaar¹,

Miall²,

Stein³

2000

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Strong support for this idea in the context of reaching and grasping has been provided in recent experiments by Bingham (2001) and by Crowell, Todd, & Bingham (2001). A similar idea has been proposed in connection with 2-D shapes viewed in a frontoparallel plane (Abrams & Landgraf, 1990;Gillam, 1998;Gillam & Chambers, 1985;Mack, Heuer, Villardi, & Chambers, 1985;MacLeod & Willen, 1995;Post & Welch, 1996). Hypothesis 2: Accurate Perception of Location and Anisotropy of Perceived Extent-According to this hypothesis, based in part on a model originally posed by Foley (1991) and subsequently revised by Foley, Ribeiro-Filho, and DaSilva (2001), a unified visual space exists in which perceived locations fully constrain the perceived extents.…”

Section: Four Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 65%

Dissociation between location and shape in visual space.

Loomis

Philbeck

Zahorik

2002

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There are often large perceptual distortions of shapes lying on the ground plane, even in well-lit environments. These distortions occur under conditions for which the perception of location i saccurate. Four hypotheses are considered for reconciling these seemingly paradoxical results, after which 2 experiments are reported that lend further support to 1 of them--that perception of shapeand perception of location are sometimes dissociable. The 2 experiments show that whereas perception of location does not depend on whether viewing is monocular or binocular (when other distance cues are abundant), perception of shape becomes more veridical when viewing is binocular. This means that perception of shape is not fully constrained by the perceived locations of the vertices that define the shape.

show abstract

“…Previous studies have found that goal-directed reaching can, in some circumstances, be influenced by perceptual illusions, indicating that the awareness of a stimulus might determine the behavior [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22] . Figure 3b shows that this did not occur in the present experiment.…”

Section: Author Manuscriptmentioning

confidence: 99%

The influence of visual motion on fast reaching movements to a stationary object

Whitney

Westwood

Goodale

2003

Nature

109

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the most important functions of vision is to direct actions to objects 1 . However, every time that vision is used to guide an action, retinal motion signals are produced by the movement of the eye and head as the person looks at the object or by the motion of other objects in the scene. To reach for the object accurately, the visuomotor system must separate information about the position of the stationary target from background retinal motion signals-a long-standing problem that is poorly understood 2-7 . Here we show that the visuomotor system does not distinguish between these two information sources: when observers made fast reaching movements to a briefly presented stationary target, their hand shifted in a direction consistent with the motion of a distant and unrelated stimulus, a result contrary to most other findings 8,9 . This can be seen early in the hand's trajectory (~120 ms) and occurs continuously from programming of the movement through to its execution. The visuomotor system might make use of the motion signals arising from eye and head movements to update the positions of targets rapidly and redirect the hand to compensate for body movements.In the first experiment we investigated the role of distant motion signals in the updating of reaching movements to a stationary target. We briefly presented a stationary object while subjects fixated on a bull's-eye at the centre of a screen (see Fig. 1a and Methods). Subjects hit the position of the flashed object as quickly as possible with their index finger. A vertically drifting pattern was presented on the screen throughout the trial. Initially the pattern drifted in one direction, but, at an unpredictable moment, the direction of the drifting pattern was reversed. Figure 1b shows that the endpoints of the reaching movements were shifted either upwards or downwards in the direction of the nearby motion. Target flashes presented well before (for example −940 ms) or well after (for example 470 ms) the motion reversal (at 0 ms) produced systematic shifts in the hand's position. Because the target in these cases was presented sufficiently long before or after the motion reversal, the entire reaching movement -both programming and execution-was performed during unidirectional motion (average movement onset and movement duration were 224 and 262 ms, respectively). For this reason it is unclear whether the motion influenced the programming phase or the on-line phase of the reaching movement, or both. Competing interests statementThe authors declare that they have no competing financial interests. NIH Public Access Author ManuscriptNature. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 January 13. The target flash presented 235 ms before the moving pattern reversed direction addresses this question: because the average reaction time was 220 ms, motion was in one direction during most of the programming phase and in the opposite direction during the movement. This condition produced a markedly reduced shift in the movement endpoint (grey oval in Fig....

show abstract

Differential use of distance and location information for spatial localization

Cited by 98 publications

References 53 publications

Changes in motion perception following oculomotor smooth pursuit adaptation

Changes in motion perception following oculomotor smooth pursuit adaptation

Dissociation between location and shape in visual space.

The influence of visual motion on fast reaching movements to a stationary object

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About