Literature DB >> 10638439

Distance estimation in the visual and visuomotor systems.

P Servos1.   

Abstract

Previous work has demonstrated that monocular vision affects the kinematics of skilled visually guided reaching movements in humans. In these experiments, prior to movement onset, subjects appeared to be underestimating the distance of objects (and as a consequence, their size) under monocular viewing relative to their reaches made under binocular control. The present series of experiments was conducted to assess whether this underestimation was a consequence of a purely visual distance underestimation under monocular viewing or whether it was due to some implicit inaccuracy in calibrating the reach by a visuomotor system normally under binocular control. In a purely perceptual task, a group of subjects made similar explicit distance estimations of the objects used in the prehension task under monocular and binocular viewing conditions, with no time constraints. A second group of subjects made these explicit distance estimations with only 500-ms views of the objects. No differences were found between monocular and binocular viewing in either of these explicit distance-estimation tasks. The limited-views subjects also performed a visually guided reaching task under monocular and binocular conditions and showed the previously demonstrated monocular underestimation (in that their monocular grasping movements showed lower peak velocities and smaller grip apertures). A distance underestimation of 4.1 cm in the monocular condition was computed by taking the y intercepts of the monocular and binocular peak velocity functions and dividing them by a common slope that minimised the sum of squares error. This distance underestimation was then used to predict the corresponding underestimation of size that should have been observed in the monocular reaches--a value closely approximating the observed value of 0.61 cm. Taken together, these results suggest that the monocular underestimation in the prehension task is not a consequence of a purely perceptual bias but rather it is visuomotor in nature--a monocular input to a system that normally calibrates motor output on the basis of binocular vision.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10638439     DOI: 10.1007/s002210050004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Exp Brain Res        ISSN: 0014-4819            Impact factor:   1.972


  14 in total

1.  Dissociation between location and shape in visual space.

Authors:  Jack M Loomis; John W Philbeck; Pavel Zahorik
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 3.332

2.  Reduced fields of view are neither necessary nor sufficient for distance underestimation but reduce precision and may cause calibration problems.

Authors:  Andrea Loftus; Susannah Murphy; Isla McKenna; Mark Mon-Williams
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2004-06-10       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  Likelihood ratios: a simple and flexible statistic for empirical psychologists.

Authors:  Scott Glover; Peter Dixon
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2004-10

4.  Advantages of binocular vision for the control of reaching and grasping.

Authors:  Dean R Melmoth; Simon Grant
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2005-12-02       Impact factor: 1.972

5.  Comparative evaluation of HD 2D/3D laparoscopic monitors and benchmarking to a theoretically ideal 3D pseudodisplay: even well-experienced laparoscopists perform better with 3D.

Authors:  D Wilhelm; S Reiser; N Kohn; M Witte; U Leiner; L Mühlbach; D Ruschin; W Reiner; H Feussner
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2014-03-21       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  Temporal integration limits of stereovision in reaching and grasping.

Authors:  K R Wilson; P M Pearson; H E Matheson; J J Marotta
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2008-05-21       Impact factor: 1.972

7.  When two eyes are better than one in prehension: monocular viewing and end-point variance.

Authors:  Andrea Loftus; Philip Servos; Melvyn A Goodale; Nicole Mendarozqueta; Mark Mon-Williams
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2004-05-26       Impact factor: 1.972

8.  Perceptual and instrumental impacts of robotic laparoscopy on surgical performance.

Authors:  Adélaïde Blavier; Quentin Gaudissart; Guy-Bernard Cadière; Anne-Sophie Nyssen
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2007-05-04       Impact factor: 3.453

9.  Grasping kinematics from the perspective of the individual digits: a modelling study.

Authors:  Rebekka Verheij; Eli Brenner; Jeroen B J Smeets
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-03-07       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Rapid eye movements to a virtual target are biased by illusory context in the Poggendorff figure.

Authors:  D Melmoth; S Grant; J A Solomon; M J Morgan
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2015-04-26       Impact factor: 1.972

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.