Literature DB >> 11880249

Optimal control strategies under different feedback schedules: kinematic evidence.

Michael A Khan1, Digby Elliot, Jamie Coull, Romeo Chua, James Lyons.   

Abstract

Two experiments were conducted in which participants (N = 12, Experiment 1; N = 12, Experiment 2) performed rapid aiming movements with and without visual feedback under blocked, random, and alternating feedback schedules. Prior knowledge of whether vision would be available had a significant impact on the strategies that participants adopted. When they knew that vision would be available, less time was spent preparing movements before movement initiation. Participants also reached peak deceleration sooner but spent more time after peak deceleration adjusting limb trajectories. Consistent with those findings, analysis of spatial variability at different points in the trajectory indicated that variability increased up to peak deceleration but then decreased from peak deceleration to the end of the movement.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11880249     DOI: 10.1080/00222890209601930

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Mot Behav        ISSN: 0022-2895            Impact factor:   1.328


  46 in total

1.  The utilization of visual feedback from peripheral and central vision in the control of direction.

Authors:  Michael A Khan; Gavin P Lawrence; Ian M Franks; Eric Buckolz
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2004-05-04       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  On-line vs. off-line utilization of peripheral visual afferent information to ensure spatial accuracy of goal-directed movements.

Authors:  Patrick Bédard; Luc Proteau
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2004-03-17       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  Müller-Lyer figures influence the online reorganization of visually guided grasping movements.

Authors:  Matthew Heath; Christina Rival; Kristina Neely; Olav Krigolson
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2005-11-16       Impact factor: 1.972

4.  Visual afferent information dominates other sources of afferent information during mixed practice of a video-aiming task.

Authors:  Luc Proteau
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2004-10-23       Impact factor: 1.972

5.  Differences in visuomotor control between the upper and lower visual fields.

Authors:  Michael A Khan; Gavin P Lawrence
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2005-07-01       Impact factor: 1.972

6.  A lower visual field advantage for endpoint stability but no advantage for online movement precision.

Authors:  Olav Krigolson; Matthew Heath
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2006-02-25       Impact factor: 1.972

7.  The type of visual information mediates eye and hand movement bias when aiming to a Müller-Lyer illusion.

Authors:  Ann Lavrysen; Werner F Helsen; Digby Elliott; Martinus J Buekers; Peter Feys; Elke Heremans
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2006-05-23       Impact factor: 1.972

8.  Goal-directed reaching: movement strategies influence the weighting of allocentric and egocentric visual cues.

Authors:  Kristina A Neely; Ayla Tessmer; Gordon Binsted; Matthew Heath
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2007-12-18       Impact factor: 1.972

9.  Factors influencing online control of video-aiming movements performed without vision of the cursor.

Authors:  Louis-Nicolas Veilleux; Luc Proteau
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2009-03-25

10.  Optimizing the control of high-ID movements: rethinking the power of the visual display.

Authors:  Jason B Boyle; Stefan Panzer; Chaoyi Wang; Deanna Kennedy; Charles H Shea
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2013-10-04       Impact factor: 1.972

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.