The Utility of Vision During Action: Multiple Visuomotor Processes?

Abstract

Recently, D. Elliott et al. (2010) asserted that the current control phase of a movement could be segregated in multiple processes, including impulse and limb-target regulation processes. The authors aimed to provide further empirical evidence and determine some of the constraints that govern these visuomotor processes. In 2 experiments, vision was presented or withdrawn when limb velocity was above or below selected velocity criteria. The authors observed that vision provided between 0.8 and 0.9 m/s significantly improved impulse regulation processes while vision provided up to 1.1 m/s significantly increased limb-target regulation processes. These results lend support to D. Elliott et al. and provide evidence that impulse regulation and limb-target regulation can take place at different velocities during a movement.

Quantifying online visuomotor feedback utilization in the frequency domain

“…These main effects were in line with previous findings differentiating FV from NV conditions (e.g., Heath, 2005;Khan, Lawrence, Franks, & Buckolz, 2004;Tremblay, Hansen, Kennedy, & Cheng, 2013;cf. Bernier et al, 2006).…”

“…Additionally, Elliott and Hansen computed their R 2 -type analyses from fewer trials per condition (i.e., 20) and through correlations at the occurrences of kinematic markers in the primary movement axis (i.e., peak acceleration, peak velocity, and peak deceleration; see also Heath, 2005). In contrast, in the present study we utilized a greater number of trials (i.e., 30) and normalized MT proportions (i.e., 25 % MT , 50 % MT , and 75 % MT ; see also Tremblay et al, 2013). Thus, it may be that such analyses are more sensitive regarding assessments of the percentage of MT (cf.…”

Manual preferences for visually- and haptically-guided grasping

“…When vision is occluded, individuals display larger maximum grip apertures (Jackson, Jackson & Rosicky, 1995;Jakobson & Goodale, 1991;Rand, Lemay, Squire, Shimansky & Stelmach, 2007), slower movement times (Schettino, Adamovich & Poizner, 2003;Winges, Weber & Santello, 2003), and a decrease in task accuracy, to the degree that the hand often collides with the target object (Wing, Turton & Fraser, 1986) or misses the target completely (Babinsky, Braddick & Atkinson, 2012). In contrast, in the presence of vision, individuals show improved endpoint accuracy (Westwood, Heath & Roy, 2003), correct object size scaling (Keefe & Watt, 2009), and enhanced movement regulation (Saunders & Knill, 2003;Tremblay, Hansen, Kennedy & Cheng, 2013). Not surprisingly, vision also plays a critical role in hand preference for grasping.…”

Accuracy instructions differently modulate visual and nonvisual contributions to ongoing reaches.

“…Instructions to be accurate facilitated visual processing but 47 inhibited non-visual processing associated with reaches. 48 control as a multi-faceted construct (e.g., Tremblay, Hansen, Kennedy, & Cheng, 2013). 69…”