Literature DB >> 16565811

Allocentric cues do not always improve whole body reaching performance.

Jan M Hondzinski1, Yongqin Cui.   

Abstract

The aim of this investigation was to gain further insight into control strategies used for whole body reaching tasks. Subjects were requested to step and reach to remembered target locations in normal room lighting (LIGHT) and complete darkness (DARK) with their gaze directed toward or eccentric to the remembered target location. Targets were located centrally at three different heights. Eccentric anchors for gaze direction were located at target height and initial target distance, either 30 degrees to the right or 20 degrees to the left of target location. Control trials, where targets remained in place, and remembered target trials were randomly presented. We recorded movements of the hand, eye and head, while subjects stepped and reached to real or remembered target locations. Lateral, vertical and anterior-posterior (AP) hand errors and eye location, and gaze direction deviations were determined relative to control trials. Final hand location errors varied by target height, lighting condition and gaze eccentricity. Lower reaches in the DARK compared to the LIGHT condition were common, and when matched with a tendency to reach above the low target, help explain more accurate reaches for this target in darkness. Anchoring the gaze eccentrically reduced hand errors in the AP direction and increased errors in the lateral direction. These results could be explained by deviations in eye locations and gaze directions, which were deemed significant predictors of final reach errors, accounting for a 17-47% of final hand error variance. Results also confirmed a link between gaze deviations and hand and head displacements, suggesting that gaze direction is used as a common input for movement of the hand and body. Additional links between constant and variable eye deviations and hand errors were common for the AP direction but not for lateral or vertical directions. When combined with data regarding hand error predictions, we found that subjects' alterations in body movement in the AP direction were associated with AP adjustments in their reach, but final hand position adjustments were associated with gaze direction alterations for movements in the vertical and horizontal directions. These results support the hypothesis that gaze direction provides a control signal for hand and body movement and that this control signal is used for movement direction and not amplitude.

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16565811     DOI: 10.1007/s00221-006-0421-y

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


  36 in total

1.  Role of eye, head, and shoulder geometry in the planning of accurate arm movements.

Authors:  D Y P Henriques; J D Crawford
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 2.714

2.  The Duncker illusion and eye-hand coordination.

Authors:  J F Soechting; K C Engel; M Flanders
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 2.714

3.  Direct visuomotor transformations for reaching.

Authors:  Christopher A Buneo; Murray R Jarvis; Aaron P Batista; Richard A Andersen
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2002-04-11       Impact factor: 49.962

4.  Similarity in the response of smooth pursuit and manual tracking to a change in the direction of target motion.

Authors:  K C Engel; J H Anderson; J F Soechting
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 2.714

5.  Interaction between gaze and pointing toward remembered visual targets.

Authors:  M A Admiraal; N L W Keijsers; C C A M Gielen
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2003-06-18       Impact factor: 2.714

6.  Eye position tunes the contribution of allocentric and egocentric information to target localization in human goal-directed arm movements.

Authors:  M Gentilucci; E Daprati; M Gangitano; I Toni
Journal:  Neurosci Lett       Date:  1997-01-31       Impact factor: 3.046

7.  Sensorimotor representations for pointing to targets in three-dimensional space.

Authors:  J F Soechting; M Flanders
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  1989-08       Impact factor: 2.714

8.  Contribution of retinal versus extraretinal signals towards visual localization in goal-directed movements.

Authors:  O Bock
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  1986       Impact factor: 1.972

9.  The non-visual impact of eye orientation on eye-hand coordination.

Authors:  J T Enright
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1995-06       Impact factor: 1.886

10.  Multisensory spatial representations in eye-centered coordinates for reaching.

Authors:  Alexandre Pouget; Jean Christophe Ducom; Jeffrey Torri; Daphne Bavelier
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2002-02
View more
  3 in total

1.  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

2.  Pointing control using a moving base of support.

Authors:  Jan M Hondzinski; Taegyong Kwon
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2009-06-21       Impact factor: 1.972

Review 3.  Spatial constancy mechanisms in motor control.

Authors:  W Pieter Medendorp
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2011-02-27       Impact factor: 6.237

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.