Literature DB >> 14973339

The control of memory-guided reaching movements in peripersonal space.

Matthew Heath1, David A Westwood, Gordon Binsted.   

Abstract

The goal of the present investigation was to explore the putative contributions of feedforward- and feedback-based processes in the control of memory-guided reaching movements. Participants (N = 4) completed an extensive number of reaching movements (2700) to 3 midline targets (20, 30, 40 cm) in 6 visual conditions: full-vision, open-loop, and four memory-guided conditions (0, 200, 400, and 600 ms of delay). To infer limb control, we used a regression technique to examine the within-trial correspondence between the spatial position of the limb at peak acceleration, peak velocity, peak deceleration, and the ultimate movement endpoint. A high degree of within-trial correspondence would suggest that the final position of the limb was largely specified prior to movement onset and not adjusted during the action (i.e., feedforward control); conversely, a low degree of within-trial correspondence would suggest that movements were modified during the reaching trajectory (i.e., feedback control). Full-vision reaches were found to be more accurate and less variable than open-loop and memory-guided reaches. Moreover, full-vision reaches demonstrated only modest within-trial correspondence between the spatial position of the limb at each kinematic marker and the ultimate movement endpoint, suggesting that reaching accuracy was achieved by adjusting the limb trajectory throughout the course of the action. Open-loop and memory-guided movements exhibited strong within-trial correspondence between final limb position and the position of the limb at peak velocity and peak deceleration. This strong correspondence indicates that the final position of the limb was largely determined by processes that occurred before the reach was initiated; errors in the planning process were not corrected during the course of the action. Thus, and contrary to our previous findings in a video-based aiming task, it appears that stored target information is not extensively (if at all) used to modify the trajectory of reaching movements to remembered targets in peripersonal space.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 14973339     DOI: 10.1123/mcj.8.1.76

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Motor Control        ISSN: 1087-1640            Impact factor:   1.422


  31 in total

1.  Can the motor system resolve a premovement bias in grip aperture? Online analysis of grasping the Müller-Lyer illusion.

Authors:  Matthew Heath; Christina Rival; Gordon Binsted
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2004-07-27       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  Antisaccades exhibit diminished online control relative to prosaccades.

Authors:  Matthew Heath; Katie Dunham; Gordon Binsted; Bryan Godbolt
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2010-05-19       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  Brain activation related to combinations of gaze position, visual input, and goal-directed hand movements.

Authors:  Patrick Bédard; Min Wu; Jerome N Sanes
Journal:  Cereb Cortex       Date:  2010-10-25       Impact factor: 5.357

4.  Vector inversion diminishes the online control of antisaccades.

Authors:  Matthew Heath; Jeffrey Weiler; Kendall Marriott; Timothy N Welsh
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2011-01-06       Impact factor: 1.972

5.  Different damping responses explain vertical endpoint error differences between visual conditions.

Authors:  Jan M Hondzinski; Chelsea M Soebbing; Allyson E French; Sara A Winges
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2016-01-28       Impact factor: 1.972

6.  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

7.  No evidence of a lower visual field specialization for visuomotor control.

Authors:  Gord Binsted; Matthew Heath
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2004-10-23       Impact factor: 1.972

8.  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

9.  Visuomotor representation decay: influence on motor systems.

Authors:  Tyler M Rolheiser; Gordon Binsted; Kyle J Brownell
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2006-05-05       Impact factor: 1.972

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.