Transfer of attunement in length perception by dynamic touch

Abstract

Earlier studies have revealed that the calibration of an action sometimes transfers in a functionally specific way—the calibration of one action transfers to other actions that serve the same goal, even when they are performed with different anatomical structures. In the present study, we tested whether attunement (the process by which perceivers learn to detect a more useful, specifying, informational pattern) follows such a functional organization. Participants were trained to perceive the length of rods by dynamic touch with one of their effectors. It was found that training the right hand resulted in an attunement to a specifying variable with both hands, but not with the feet. Training the other limbs did not result in attunement. However, substantial individual differences were found. The implications of the results are explored for theories on the organization of perceptual learning and discussions on individual differences in perception.

The Anatomy of Action Systems: Task Differentiation When Learning an EMG Controlled Game

“…Our results suggest that the anatomical independence that comes to characterize a mature action system can be viewed as the outcome of a process of increasing differentiation of the task over learning. In this process of both calibration (e.g., Bingham et al, 2014) and exploration (e.g., De Vries et al, 2015), the action system changes along with the task to which it pertains. That is, as achieving the task requires a more finely attuned action system, the system refines its coordination.…”

“…A primary process in getting an action system to be functionally specific to a task is the process of “calibration.” This process maps the action system to the perceptual information necessary to perform a specific task (see Rieser et al, 1995; Withagen and Michaels, 2005; De Vries et al, 2015). In a seminal study for example, Rieser et al (1995) showed that as long as information for forward movement (optic flow) is available to calibrate to, an action system for locomotion can be set up irrespective of the anatomy involved.…”

“…However, the converse was also recently shown: task-relevant distinctions emerge on the basis of anatomical constraints. De Vries et al (2015) showed that in an unfamiliar task in which the length of a stick needed to be estimated using either hands or feet the “education of attention,” that is the moving toward the most useful perceptual information (Jacobs and Michaels, 2007; De Vries et al, 2015), was partly constrained by the anatomy used. Crucially, the results of their experiment suggested that this was so because the ability to distinguish perceptual information with either hands or feet differed.…”

“…Crucially, the results of their experiment suggested that this was so because the ability to distinguish perceptual information with either hands or feet differed. In other words, the ability to explore for more useful information was constrained by the anatomical components taken up during performance (De Vries et al, 2015). Some anatomical aspects, it seemed, could not (yet) generate the appropriate type of information for acting.…”

“…Although action systems are defined relative to a task and often end up as largely independent of their specific anatomical components, the task itself might be differentiated by the learner based, in part, on the anatomical constraints it faces when learning to perform it (e.g., Bingham et al, 2014; De Vries et al, 2015). Consequently, during the learning of a task, the anatomical independence that comes to characterize a mature action system may be viewed as the outcome of a process of increasing adaptation and refinement of the task.…”