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

Abstract

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.

Effects of Hand and Hemispace on Multisensory Integration of Hand Position and Visual Feedback

“…Debats et al, 2017b). The observed difference between hemispaces is also consistent with other studies showing higher precision of proprioception-based position judgments in ipsilateral hemispace (Bradshaw et al, 1983, 1989; Carson et al, 1990b; Imanaka et al, 1995) as well as observations of superior sensorimotor control of ipsilateral reaches compared with contralateral reaches (Fisk and Goodale, 1985; Carson et al, 1990a; Mieschke et al, 2001; Kim et al, 2011; Carey and Liddle, 2013; Rand and Rentsch, 2017).…”

“…With respect to hemispaces, the precision of proprioceptively sensed positions of the hand tends to be higher in ipsilateral than in contralateral hemispace (Bradshaw et al, 1983, 1989; Carson et al, 1990b; Imanaka et al, 1995; no differences have been reported by e.g., by Wilson et al, 2010). Ipsilateral reaches are also characterized by smaller errors, shorter movement times, and shorter deceleration times (e.g., Fisk and Goodale, 1985; Carson et al, 1990a; Mieschke et al, 2001; Kim et al, 2011; Carey and Liddle, 2013; Rand and Rentsch, 2017). With respect to hands, the position of the non-dominant hand tends to be judged more precisely than the position of the dominant hand, both in right-handers and in left-handers (Goble et al, 2006, 2009; Goble and Brown, 2007, 2008a; using the thumb: Roy and MacKenzie, 1978; Nishizawa and Saslow, 1987; Riolo-Quinn, 1991; no differences have been reported by e.g., Roy and MacKenzie, 1978; Carson et al, 1990b; Imanaka et al, 1995; Adamo and Martin, 2009; Wilson et al, 2010).…”

Regression Based Prediction of Minimental State Examination Score Using the Tablet Based Trail Making Test

“…In reaching motion to a target, the gaze was directed towards a visual target until hand movement was completed (gaze-anchoring behaviour) 17 . From the theory of sensorimotor transformation to reach a target, the target location was perceived and stored in an eye-centred frame of reference, transformed to head-centred, shouldercentred, and hand-centred frames to plan multi-joint upper limb movement 18 . To perform TMT-A, two different functions, namely, target recognition and upper limb movement control, need to be coordinated with each other.…”

“…To perform TMT-A, two different functions, namely, target recognition and upper limb movement control, need to be coordinated with each other. The quadrant of direction may be assumed to be slightly involved in the allocation of attention, which is known to be biased towards the objects in the space around the hand (especially the dominant side for right-handed individuals), which biases the allocation of visual-spatial resources towards the contralateral left portion of the space 18 . Moreover, the quadrant of position may be slightly related to the advantages of ipsilateral reaching movement (i.e.…”

“…Moreover, the quadrant of position may be slightly related to the advantages of ipsilateral reaching movement (i.e. shorter movement time and higher peak velocity, compared with those of contralateral reaching) 18 .…”