The response to background motion: Characteristics of a movement stabilization mechanism

Crowe, Emily M.; Smeets, Jeroen B. J.; Brenner, Eli

doi:10.1167/jov.21.11.3

Cited by 5 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In line with other research (e.g., Brenner & Smeets, 2015 ; Crowe et al, 2021 ), we find evidence that the response is most sensitive to motion signals close to the endpoint of one’s action. This is in contrast to the conclusions drawn by Abekawa and Gomi ( 2010 ), who suggested that the response was not modulated by the location of the motion signal relative to the planned movement endpoint.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…People continuously use visual information to adjust their movements in dynamic environments (Brenner & Smeets, 2018 ). For example, when reaching to a target item their movement is pulled in the direction of motion of the target (Brenner, Smeets, & De Lussanet, 1998 ; Brouwer, Middelburg, Smeets, & Brenner, 2003 ; de Lussanet, Smeets, & Brenner, 2001 ) but also by motion onset in the surrounding area of that item (e.g., Brenner & Smeets, 1997 ; Gomi et al, 2006 ; Saijo et al, 2005 ; Whitney et al, 2003 ; Zhang et al, 2018 , 2019 ), presumably to stabilize the ongoing movement (Crowe et al, 2021 ). Since the visual system organizes its input into perceptually coherent objects and surfaces, it makes sense that this response to motion onsets might consider whether the surface at the anticipated movement endpoint is moving, and if not, how close the moving surface is to that endpoint.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is well documented that the moving arm quickly follows target displacements (reviewed by Smeets, Oostwoud Wijdenes, & Brenner, 2016 ). It is also known that the moving arm quickly follows motion onsets in the surrounding area (e.g., Brenner & Smeets, 1997 ; Gomi, Abekawa, & Nishida, 2006 ; Saijo, Murakami, Nishida, & Gomi, 2005 ; Whitney, Westwood, & Goodale, 2003 ; Zhang, Brenner, Duysens, Verschueren, & Smeets, 2018 , Zhang, Brenner, Duysens, Verschueren, & Smeets, 2019 ), in particular if they occur near the anticipated movement endpoint (e.g., Brenner & Smeets, 2015 ; Crowe, Smeets, & Brenner, 2021 ). We propose that this following response is due to shifting the planned movement endpoint in the direction of the motion onset (Crowe et al, 2021 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is also known that the moving arm quickly follows motion onsets in the surrounding area (e.g., Brenner & Smeets, 1997 ; Gomi, Abekawa, & Nishida, 2006 ; Saijo, Murakami, Nishida, & Gomi, 2005 ; Whitney, Westwood, & Goodale, 2003 ; Zhang, Brenner, Duysens, Verschueren, & Smeets, 2018 , Zhang, Brenner, Duysens, Verschueren, & Smeets, 2019 ), in particular if they occur near the anticipated movement endpoint (e.g., Brenner & Smeets, 2015 ; Crowe, Smeets, & Brenner, 2021 ). We propose that this following response is due to shifting the planned movement endpoint in the direction of the motion onset (Crowe et al, 2021 ). The position of the planned endpoint obviously only changes if the motion onset pertains to the surface at which the movement is supposed to end, so the interpretation of the scene as consisting of surfaces is relevant.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The squares shifted to the left or right at a given moment after the moving target appeared, so the motion signal generated by the shift was restricted to the squares’ (vertical) edges. For the larger squares, the motion signal is farther from the target, so if only local motion information is considered, the magnitude of the response should decrease with size (Crowe et al, 2021 ). If the response considers whether the local surface is moving, the predictions differ between the frame and tile.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Hand movements respond to any motion near the endpoint

Crowe

Smeets

Brenner

2022

Atten Percept Psychophys

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hand movements are pulled in the direction of motion near their planned endpoints. Is this an automatic response to motion signals near those positions, or do we consider what is moving? To find out, we asked participants to hit a target that moved rightward across a patterned surface when it reached an interception zone that was indicated by a circle. The circle was initially at the center of a square. The square was either filled, occluding the patterned surface (tile), or open, such that the patterned surface was not occluded (frame). The square briefly moved leftward or rightward shortly after the target appeared. Thus, participants were either aiming to hit the target on the surface that moved (the tile) or to hit the target on the patterned surface that did not move. Moving the two types of squares produced very similar local motion signals, but for the tile this could be interpreted as motion of an extended surface, while for the frame it could not. Motion onset of the two types of squares yielded very similar responses. Increasing the size of the square, and thus the eccentricity of the local motion signal, reduced the magnitude of the response. Since this reduction was seen for both types of squares, the surface on which the interception zone was presented was clearly not considered. We conclude that the response is driven by local motion signals near the endpoint of the action without considering whether the local surface is moving.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Hand movements respond to any motion near the endpoint

Crowe

Smeets

Brenner

2022

Atten Percept Psychophys

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

How similar are responses to background motion and target displacements?

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When making a goal-directed movement towards a target, our hand follows abrupt background motion. This response resembles that of a shift in the target’s position. Does background motion simply change the position towards which the movement is guided? If so, the response to background motion should resemble the response to a target displacement. To find out whether this is the case, we ran two exploratory studies where we asked participants to hit a moving target at a specified moment. At various times during the hand’s movement, the background could move briefly at one of several speeds, and for various durations. The response to abrupt background motion was larger when the background moved later in the movement and when the background moved faster, in line with known responses to target displacements. The response to a second epoch of background motion was smaller than it would have been if there had been no first epoch, in contrast to responses to multiple target displacements. If the background was already moving before the target appeared, the hand even moved in the opposite direction. Thus, the response to background motion and that to a target displacement are clearly not identical, but they do share several features.

show abstract

Online updating of obstacle positions when intercepting a virtual target

2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People rely upon sensory information in the environment to guide their actions. Ongoing goal-directed arm movements are constantly adjusted to the latest estimate of both the target and hand’s positions. Does the continuous guidance of ongoing arm movements also consider the latest visual information of the position of obstacles in the surrounding? To find out, we asked participants to slide their finger across a screen to intercept a laterally moving virtual target while moving through a gap that was created by two virtual circular obstacles. At a fixed time during each trial, the target suddenly jumped slightly laterally while still continuing to move. In half the trials, the size of the gap changed at the same moment as the target jumped. As expected, participants adjusted their movements in response to the target jump. Importantly, the magnitude of this response depended on the new size of the gap. If participants were told that the circles were irrelevant, changing the gap between them had no effect on the responses. This shows that obstacles’ instantaneous positions can be considered when visually guiding goal-directed movements.

show abstract

The response to background motion: Characteristics of a movement stabilization mechanism

Cited by 5 publications

References 40 publications

Hand movements respond to any motion near the endpoint

Hand movements respond to any motion near the endpoint

How similar are responses to background motion and target displacements?

Online updating of obstacle positions when intercepting a virtual target

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About