| Literature DB >> 16418852 |
Abstract
The present study evaluated the role of eye movements for manual adaptation to reversed vision. Subjects tracked a visual target using a mouse-driven cursor. In Experiment A, they were instructed to look at the target, look at the cursor, fixate straight ahead, or received no instructions regarding eye movements (Groups T, C, F, and N, respectively). Experiment B involved Groups T and C only. In accordance with literature, baseline manual tracking was more accurate when subjects were instructed to move their eyes rather than to fixate straight ahead. In contrast, no such benefit was observed for the adaptive improvement of tracking. We therefore concluded that transfer of information from the oculomotor to the hand motor system enhances the ongoing control of hand movements but not their adaptive modification; probably because the large computational demand of adaptation does not allow an additional processing of supplementary oculomotor signals. We further found adaptation to be worse in T than in any other group. In particular, adaptation was worse in T than in C although eye movements were the same: subjects in both groups moved their eyes in close relationship with the target rather than the cursor, Group C thus disobeying our instructions. The deficient performance of Group T is therefore not related to eye movements per se, but rather to our instructions. We conclude that an independently moving target strongly attracts eye movements independent of instruction (i.e. Groups T and C), but instructions may redirect spatially selective attention (i.e. Group T vs C), and thus influence adaptation.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2006 PMID: 16418852 DOI: 10.1007/s00221-005-0301-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Exp Brain Res ISSN: 0014-4819 Impact factor: 1.972