Eye-Hand Coordination during Visuomotor Adaptation with Different Rotation Angles: Effects of Terminal Visual Feedback

Rand, Miya K.; Rentsch, Sebastian

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0164602

Cited by 23 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 64 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, it has to remain unclear whether and/or to what extent the conscious experience of these conditions might have influenced the extent to which body-related and body-external signals were integrated in the present study. Ideomotor models of human action control (e.g., Hommel, 2013;James, 1890James, /1981Koch, Keller, & Prinz, 2004;Shin, Proctor, & Capaldi, 2010;Waszak, Cardoso-Leite, & Hughes, 2012) provide another view on our findings and possibly also on previous findings (e.g., Debats et al, 2017a;Rand & Rentsch, 2016) that found reduced multisensory integration, or reduced integration of a body effector and an external object. Ideomotor theory states that action-effect incompatibility leads to a conflict between the representation of the action's resident effect (the body movement) and its remote effect (the object movement).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

“…Second, we held all other kinematic characteristics of the cursor and hand movements equal between the additive and inverted condition, except the movement direction itself: actual physical distance at judgment positions and thus "usability" of the cursor position for hand position judgments, equal gain of hand and cursor movement, controllability of cursor, and whether the hand was moving towards or away from the cursor before the spatial judgments did not differ between the two conditions. Previous studies that observed reduced mutual attraction of spatial hand and cursor judgments with increasing mismatch between hand and object movements did not control for all of these confounds (e.g., Debats et al, 2017a;Rand & Rentsch, 2016). It might be possible, though, that differences in binding resulted from different exposure times to the hand and cursor movements in the different conditions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Spatial action–effect binding depends on type of action–effect transformation

Liesner

Kirsch

Pfister

et al. 2020

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Spatial action-effect binding denotes the mutual attraction between the perceived position of an effector (e.g., one's own hand) and a distal object that is controlled by this effector. Such spatial binding can be construed as an implicit measure of object ownership, thus the belonging of a controlled object to the own body. The current study investigated how different transformations of hand movements (body-internal action component) into movements of a visual object (body-external action component) affect spatial action-effect binding, and thus implicit object ownership. In brief, participants had to bring a cursor on the computer screen into a predefined target position by moving their occluded hand on a tablet and had to estimate their final hand position. In Experiment 1, we found a significantly lower drift of the proprioceptive position of the hand towards the visual object when hand movements were transformed into laterally inverted cursor movements, rather than cursor movements in the same direction. Experiment 2 showed that this reduction reflected an elimination of spatial action-effect binding in the inverted condition. The results are discussed with respect to the prerequisites for an experience of ownership over artificial, noncorporeal objects. Our results show that predictability of an object movement alone is not a sufficient condition for ownership because, depending on the type of transformation, integration of the effector and a distal object can be fully abolished even under conditions of full controllability.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Spatial action–effect binding depends on type of action–effect transformation

Liesner

Kirsch

Pfister

et al. 2020

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Links between the intended direction of movement and eye movements have been foreshadowed (Rentsch and Rand, 2014;Rand and Rentsch, 2016) and demonstrated explicitly (de Brouwer et al, 2018). Our study supports these earlier findings, although there are some technical issues that deserve consideration.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…Our study supports these earlier findings, although there are some technical issues that deserve consideration. First, we followed the Rand and Rentsch (2016) study in using only end-point feedback rather than continuous presentation of the cursor. This simplified the eye movements and allowed us to determine that the fixations immediately before movement initiation provided the most reliable estimate of explicit adaptation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…During unperturbed reaching movements, the eyes were found to provide an unbiased estimate of hand position (Ariff et al, 2002). During visuomotor rotation, there is an increase in correlation between gaze and hand directions in early practice, which gradually decreased thereafter (Rand and Rentsch, 2016). Indeed, a recent study found that gaze patterns during visuomotor adaptation were linked to explicit learning (de Brouwer et al, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Eye Movements during Visuomotor Adaptation Represent Only Part of the Explicit Learning

Bromberg

Donchin

Haar

2019

eNeuro

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Visuomotor rotations are learned through a combination of explicit strategy and implicit recalibration. However, measuring the relative contribution of each remains a challenge and the possibility of multiple explicit and implicit components complicates the issue. Recent interest has focused on the possibility that eye movements reflects explicit strategy. Here we compared eye movements during adaptation to two accepted measures of explicit learning: verbal report and the exclusion test. We found that while reporting, all subjects showed a match among all three measures. However, when subjects did not report their intention, the eye movements of some subjects suggested less explicit adaptation than what was measured in an exclusion test. Interestingly, subjects whose eye movements did match their exclusion could be clustered into the following two subgroups: fully implicit learners showing no evidence of explicit adaptation and explicit learners with little implicit adaptation. Subjects showing a mix of both explicit and implicit adaptation were also those where eye movements showed less explicit adaptation than did exclusion. Thus, our results support the idea of multiple components of explicit learning as only part of the explicit learning is reflected in the eye movements. Individual subjects may use explicit components that are reflected in the eyes or those that are not or some mixture of the two. Analysis of reaction times suggests that the explicit components reflected in the eye movements involve longer reaction times. This component, according to recent literature, may be related to mental rotation. Significance StatementVisuomotor adaptation involves both explicit and implicit components: aware reaiming and unaware error correction. Recent studies suggest that eye movements could be used to capture the explicit component, a method that would have significant advantages over other approaches. We show that eye movements capture only one component of explicit adaptation. This component scales with reaction time while the component unrelated to eye movements does not. Our finding has obvious practical implications for the use of eye movements as a proxy for explicit learning. However, our results also corroborate recent findings suggesting the existence of multiple explicit components, and, specifically, their decomposition into components correlated with reaction time and components that are not.

show abstract

Eye–hand coordination during visuomotor adaptation: effects of hemispace and joint coordination

Rand

Rentsch

2017

Exp Brain Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We previously examined adaptive changes of eye-hand coordination during learning of a visuomotor rotation. Gazes during reaching movements were initially directed to a feedback cursor in early practice, but were gradually shifted toward the target with more practice, indicating an emerging gaze anchoring behavior. This adaptive pattern reflected a functional change of gaze control from exploring the cursor-hand relation to guiding the hand to the task goal. The present study further examined the effects of hemispace and joint coordination associated with target directions on this behavior. Young adults performed center-out reaching movements to four targets with their right hand on a horizontal digitizer, while looking at a rotated visual feedback cursor on a computer monitor. To examine the effect of hemispace related to visual stimuli, two out of the four targets were located in the ipsilateral workspace relative to the hand used, the other two in the contralateral workspace. To examine the effect of hemispace related to manual actions, two among the four targets were related to reaches made in the ipsilateral workspace, the other two to reaches made in the contralateral workspace. Furthermore, to examine the effect of the complexity of joint coordination, two among the four targets were reaches involving a direct path from the start to the target involving elbow movements (simple), whereas the other two targets were reaches involving both shoulder and elbow movements (complex). The results showed that the gaze anchoring behavior gradually emerged during practice for reaches made in all target directions. The speed of this change was affected mainly by the hemispace related to manual actions, whereas the other two effects were minimal. The gaze anchoring occurred faster for the ipsilateral reaches than for the contralateral reaches; gazes prior to the gaze anchoring were also directed less at the cursor vicinity but more at the mid-area between the starting point and the target. These results suggest that ipsilateral reaches result in a better predictability of the cursor-hand relation under the visuomotor rotation, thereby prompting an earlier functional change of gaze control through practice from a reactive to a predictive control.

show abstract

Eye-Hand Coordination during Visuomotor Adaptation with Different Rotation Angles: Effects of Terminal Visual Feedback

Cited by 23 publications

References 64 publications

Spatial action–effect binding depends on type of action–effect transformation

Spatial action–effect binding depends on type of action–effect transformation

Eye Movements during Visuomotor Adaptation Represent Only Part of the Explicit Learning

Eye–hand coordination during visuomotor adaptation: effects of hemispace and joint coordination

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About