Literature DB >> 12858957

Fast corrections of movements with a computer mouse.

Eli Brenner1, Jeroen B J Smeets.   

Abstract

When we reach out for an object with our hand, we transform visual information about the object's position into muscle contractions that will bring our digits to that position. If we reach out with a tool the transformation is different, because the muscle contractions must bring the critical part of the tool to the object, rather than the digits. The difference between the motion of the hand and that of the tool can be quite large, as when moving a computer mouse across a table to bring a cursor to a position on a screen. We examined the responses to unpredictable visual perturbations during such movements. People responded about as quickly to changes in the position of the target when pointing with the mouse as when doing so with their hand. They also responded about as quickly when the cursor was displaced as when the target was displaced. We show that this is not because the visually perceived separation between target and cursor is transformed into a desired displacement of the hand. Our conclusion is that our actions are controlled by the judged positions of the end-effector and the target, even when the former is quite detached from the muscles and joints that are involved in the action.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12858957     DOI: 10.1163/156856803322467581

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spat Vis        ISSN: 0169-1015


  40 in total

1.  Flexible, task-dependent use of sensory feedback to control hand movements.

Authors:  David C Knill; Amulya Bondada; Manu Chhabra
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2011-01-26       Impact factor: 6.167

2.  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

3.  The temporal evolution of feedback gains rapidly update to task demands.

Authors:  Michael Dimitriou; Daniel M Wolpert; David W Franklin
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2013-06-26       Impact factor: 6.167

4.  Two eyes in action.

Authors:  Eli Brenner; Jeroen B J Smeets
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2005-12-06       Impact factor: 1.972

5.  Sensory integration does not lead to sensory calibration.

Authors:  Jeroen B J Smeets; John J van den Dobbelsteen; Denise D J de Grave; Robert J van Beers; Eli Brenner
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2006-11-27       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  Sources of variability in interceptive movements.

Authors:  Eli Brenner; Jeroen B J Smeets
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2009-03-13       Impact factor: 1.972

7.  Rapid and flexible whole body postural responses are evoked from perturbations to the upper limb during goal-directed reaching.

Authors:  Catherine R Lowrey; Joseph Y Nashed; Stephen H Scott
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2016-12-21       Impact factor: 2.714

8.  Correlations Between Primary Motor Cortex Activity with Recent Past and Future Limb Motion During Unperturbed Reaching.

Authors:  Tomohiko Takei; Frédéric Crevecoeur; Troy M Herter; Kevin P Cross; Stephen H Scott
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2018-07-23       Impact factor: 6.167

9.  Explicit knowledge and real-time action control: anticipating a change does not make us respond more quickly.

Authors:  Brendan D Cameron; Darian T Cheng; Romeo Chua; Paul van Donkelaar; Gordon Binsted
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2013-01-18       Impact factor: 1.972

10.  Risk-sensitive optimal feedback control accounts for sensorimotor behavior under uncertainty.

Authors:  Arne J Nagengast; Daniel A Braun; Daniel M Wolpert
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2010-07-15       Impact factor: 4.475

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.