Movement Adjustments Have Short Latencies Because There is No Need to Detect Anything

Smeets, Jeroen B. J.; Wijdenes, Leonie Oostwoud; Brenner, Eli

doi:10.1123/mc.2014-0064

Cited by 56 publications

(51 citation statements)

References 69 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, it was found that correction latency was significantly longer for movements to visual targets perturbed towards the body compared to visual targets perturbed away from the body. These findings are therefore consistent with the hypothesis that detection processes have very little influence on correction processes during ongoing reaching movements (Smeets et al 2016).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Rapid online corrections for upper limb reaches to perturbed somatosensory targets: evidence for non-visual sensorimotor transformation processes

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When performing upper limb reaches, the sensorimotor system can adjust to changes in target location even if the reaching limb is not visible. To accomplish this task, sensory information about the new target location and the current position of the unseen limb are used to program online corrections. Previous researchers have argued that, prior to the initiation of corrections, somatosensory information from the unseen limb must be transformed into a visual reference frame. However, most of these previous studies involved movements to visual targets. The purpose of the present study was to determine if visual sensorimotor transformations are also necessary for the online control of movements to somatosensory targets. Participants performed reaches towards somatosensory and visual targets without vision of their reaching limb. Target positions were either stationary, or perturbed before (~450 ms), or after movement onset (~100 ms or ~200 ms). In response to target perturbations after movement onset, participants exhibited shorter correction latencies, larger correction magnitudes, and smaller movement endpoint errors when they reached to somatosensory targets as compared to visual targets. Because reference frame transformations have been shown to increase both processing time and errors, these results indicate that hand position was not transformed into visual reference frame during online corrections for movements to somatosensory targets. These findings support the idea that different sensorimotor transformations are used for the online control of movements to somatosensory and visual targets.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Rapid online corrections for upper limb reaches to perturbed somatosensory targets: evidence for non-visual sensorimotor transformation processes

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…et al Brenner 2013) or is not noticed by the participant (Goodale et al 1986;Prablanc and Martin 1992). That the displacement does not have to be detected for corrections to be made shows that the adjustments are manifestations of a mechanism that continuously updates the estimate of the target location and guides the movement to that location (Brenner and Smeets 2017;Smeets et al 2016). The latency of the adjustment depends on how much time it takes to process the relevant sensory information and thus on the properties of the target (Veerman et al 2008).…”

Section: How Movements Are Controlled Continuouslymentioning

confidence: 99%

Continuously updating one’s predictions underlies successful interception

Brenner

Smeets

2018

Journal of Neurophysiology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reviews our understanding of the interception of moving objects. Interception is a demanding task that requires both spatial and temporal precision. The required precision must be achieved on the basis of imprecise and sometimes biased sensory information. We argue that people make precise interceptive movements by continuously adjusting their movements. Initial estimates of how the movement should progress can be quite inaccurate. As the movement evolves, the estimate of how the rest of the movement should progress gradually becomes more reliable as prediction is replaced by sensory information about the progress of the movement. The improvement is particularly important when things do not progress as anticipated. Constantly adjusting one’s estimate of how the movement should progress combines the opportunity to move in a way that one anticipates will best meet the task demands with correcting for any errors in such anticipation. The fact that the ongoing movement might have to be adjusted can be considered when determining how to move, and any systematic anticipation errors can be corrected on the basis of the outcome of earlier actions.

show abstract

“…R eaction times can be used to judge how long it takes to process various things about external signals (Donders, 1868(Donders, , 1969. Detecting the presence of a stimulus, recognizing it, selecting a suitable response, and planning and executing the response, all take time (Smeets, Oostwoud Wijdenes, & Brenner, 2016). It takes longer to initiate a motor response to a stimulus if the stimulus is less intense, if the stimulus has to be recognized rather than only detected, if there are several possible responses to choose from, and so on (Teichner & Krebs, 1972, Teichner & Krebs, 1974.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Can You Best Measure Reaction Times?

Brenner

Smeets

2018

Journal of Motor Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comparing many ways of measuring and analyzing reaction times reveals that the chosen method influences both the judged reaction time and, more importantly, conclusions about how the reaction time depends on the circumstances under study. The task was to lift one's finger in response to a tone. The response amplitude was either constrained or not. Constraining the amplitude made the response less vigorous. When the response was less vigorous it took longer to move far enough to release a switch or exceed the elasticity of the finger pulp. Although using a micro-switch would have made the reaction time appear to be longer for the constrained movement, reaction times determined in the most reliable ways were not systematically longer for the constrained movement. The most reliable method is to use extrapolation of the change in the average force that the finger exerts on the surface to estimate the reaction time.

show abstract

Movement Adjustments Have Short Latencies Because There is No Need to Detect Anything

Cited by 56 publications

References 69 publications

Rapid online corrections for upper limb reaches to perturbed somatosensory targets: evidence for non-visual sensorimotor transformation processes

Rapid online corrections for upper limb reaches to perturbed somatosensory targets: evidence for non-visual sensorimotor transformation processes

Continuously updating one’s predictions underlies successful interception

How Can You Best Measure Reaction Times?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About