Literature DB >> 15991032

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

Michael A Khan1, Gavin P Lawrence.   

Abstract

Danckert and Goodale [Exp Brain Res 137:303-308 (2001)] have shown that increases in movement time as target size decreased were greater when movements were performed in the lower compared with upper visual field. On this basis, they suggested that visual feedback processing was more effective in the lower visual field. However, despite the greater influence of target size on movement time for the lower compared to upper visual field, there were no differences in accuracy between visual fields for movements to the smallest targets. In the present study, we investigated whether superior performance would be observed in the lower visual field when movement times were constrained. Analysis of the variability in distance travelled at key kinematic markers (e.g. peak acceleration, peak velocity, and peak negative acceleration) revealed that limb trajectories were more consistent in the lower compared to upper visual field at the late stages of the movement. Also, squared correlation coefficients between the distance travelled at peak velocity and the distance at the end of the movement were smaller for movements performed in the lower visual field. These results imply that superior performance in the lower visual field was due to better utilization of visual feedback during movement execution.

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15991032     DOI: 10.1007/s00221-005-2325-7

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


  8 in total

1.  Comparison of variability of initial kinematics and endpoints of reaching movements.

Authors:  J Messier; J F Kalaska
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  1999-03       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  Superior performance for visually guided pointing in the lower visual field.

Authors:  J Danckert; M A Goodale
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 1.972

Review 3.  A century later: Woodworth's (1899) two-component model of goal-directed aiming.

Authors:  D Elliott; W F Helsen; R Chua
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 17.737

4.  Online versus offline processing of visual feedback in the control of movement amplitude.

Authors:  Michael A Khan; Gavin Lawrence; Alissa Fourkas; Ian M Franks; Digby Elliott; Samantha Pembroke
Journal:  Acta Psychol (Amst)       Date:  2003-05

5.  Eye-hand coordination: oculomotor control in rapid aimed limb movements.

Authors:  R A Abrams; D E Meyer; S Kornblum
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1990-05       Impact factor: 3.332

6.  Optimal control strategies under different feedback schedules: kinematic evidence.

Authors:  Michael A Khan; Digby Elliot; Jamie Coull; Romeo Chua; James Lyons
Journal:  J Mot Behav       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 1.328

7.  Trajectory control in targeted force impulses. III. Compensatory adjustments for initial errors.

Authors:  J Gordon; C Ghez
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  1987       Impact factor: 1.972

8.  Online versus offline processing of visual feedback in the production of component submovements.

Authors:  Michael A Khan; Ian M Franks
Journal:  J Mot Behav       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 1.328

  8 in total
  17 in total

1.  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

2.  Keep looking ahead? Re-direction of visual fixation does not always occur during an unpredictable obstacle avoidance task.

Authors:  Daniel S Marigold; Vivian Weerdesteyn; Aftab E Patla; Jacques Duysens
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2006-07-04       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  The effects of inverting prisms on the horizontal-vertical illusion: a systematic effect of downward gaze.

Authors:  Hans O Richter; Patrik Wennberg; Jaanus Raudsepp
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2007-07-04       Impact factor: 1.972

4.  fMRI reveals that non-local processing in ventral retinotopic cortex underlies perceptual grouping by temporal synchrony.

Authors:  Gideon P Caplovitz; Diego J Barroso; Po-Jang Hsieh; Peter U Tse
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 5.038

5.  Organizational principles of human visual cortex revealed by receptor mapping.

Authors:  Simon B Eickhoff; Claudia Rottschy; Milenko Kujovic; Nicola Palomero-Gallagher; Karl Zilles
Journal:  Cereb Cortex       Date:  2008-03-04       Impact factor: 5.357

6.  Morpheme Transposition of Two-Character Chinese Words in Vertical Visual Fields.

Authors:  Hong-Wen Cao; Cheng Chen; Hong-Mei Yan
Journal:  J Psycholinguist Res       Date:  2021-01-04

7.  Representational momentum reveals visual anticipation differences in the upper and lower visual fields.

Authors:  Victoria M Gottwald; Gavin P Lawrence; Amy E Hayes; Michael A Khan
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2015-05-01       Impact factor: 1.972

8.  Damage to superior parietal cortex impairs pointing in the sagittal plane.

Authors:  James Danckert; Lana Goldberg; Carol Broderick
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2009-03-17       Impact factor: 1.972

9.  BOLD signal in both ipsilateral and contralateral retinotopic cortex modulates with perceptual fading.

Authors:  Po-Jang Hsieh; Peter U Tse
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2010-03-11       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Gaze influences finger movement-related and visual-related activation across the human brain.

Authors:  Patrick Bédard; Arul Thangavel; Jerome N Sanes
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2008-03-19       Impact factor: 1.972

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.