Literature DB >> 18629484

Avoiding moving obstacles.

M Pilar Aivar1, Eli Brenner, Jeroen B J Smeets.   

Abstract

To successfully move our hand to a target, we must consider how to get there without hitting surrounding objects. In a dynamic environment this involves being able to respond quickly when our relationship with surrounding objects changes. People adjust their hand movements with a latency of about 120 ms when the visually perceived position of their hand or of the target suddenly changes. It is not known whether people can react as quickly when the position of an obstacle changes. Here we show that quick responses of the hand to changes in obstacle position are possible, but that these responses are direct reactions to the motion in the surrounding. True adjustments to the changed position of the obstacle appeared at much longer latencies (about 200 ms). This is even so when the possible change is predictable. Apparently, our brain uses certain information exceptionally quickly for guiding our movements, at the expense of not always responding adequately. For reaching a target that changes position, one must at some time move in the same direction as the target did. For avoiding obstacles that change position, moving in the same direction as the obstacle is not always an adequate response, not only because it may be easier to avoid the obstacle by moving the other way, but also because one wants to hit the target after passing the obstacle. Perhaps subjects nevertheless quickly respond in the direction of motion because this helps avoid collisions when pressed for time.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18629484     DOI: 10.1007/s00221-008-1475-9

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


  42 in total

1.  Mechanisms of selection for the control of hand action.

Authors: 
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  1999-07       Impact factor: 20.229

2.  Voluntary modification of automatic arm movements evoked by motion of a visual target.

Authors:  B L Day; I N Lyon
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  Fast corrections of movements with a computer mouse.

Authors:  Eli Brenner; Jeroen B J Smeets
Journal:  Spat Vis       Date:  2003

4.  The influence of target perturbation on manual aiming asymmetries in right-handers.

Authors:  D Elliott; J Lyons; R Chua; D Goodman; R G Carson
Journal:  Cortex       Date:  1995-12       Impact factor: 4.027

5.  Grasping a fruit: selection for action.

Authors:  U Castiello
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1996-06       Impact factor: 3.332

6.  Reach-to-grasp movements during obstacle avoidance.

Authors:  M Saling; J Alberts; G E Stelmach; J R Bloedel
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  1998-01       Impact factor: 1.972

7.  Control of human arm movements in two dimensions: paths and joint control in avoiding simple linear obstacles.

Authors:  J Dean; M Brüwer
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  1994       Impact factor: 1.972

8.  Global visual processing for saccadic eye movements.

Authors:  J M Findlay
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1982       Impact factor: 1.886

9.  Humans use continuous visual feedback from the hand to control fast reaching movements.

Authors:  Jeffrey A Saunders; David C Knill
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2003-08-06       Impact factor: 1.972

10.  The latency for correcting a movement depends on the visual attribute that defines the target.

Authors:  Margot M Veerman; Eli Brenner; Jeroen B J Smeets
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2008-02-07       Impact factor: 1.972

View more
  13 in total

1.  Adaptation to sensory-motor reflex perturbations is blind to the source of errors.

Authors:  Todd E Hudson; Michael S Landy
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2012-01-06       Impact factor: 2.240

Review 2.  Online adjustments of leg movements in healthy young and old.

Authors:  Zrinka Potocanac; Jacques Duysens
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2017-05-06       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  Reach adaptation to explicit vs. implicit target error.

Authors:  Brendan D Cameron; Ian M Franks; J Timothy Inglis; Romeo Chua
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2010-04-11       Impact factor: 1.972

4.  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

5.  Fast responses to stepping-target displacements when walking.

Authors:  Yajie Zhang; Jeroen B J Smeets; Eli Brenner; Sabine Verschueren; Jacques Duysens
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  2020-03-27       Impact factor: 5.182

6.  Is the manual following response an attempt to compensate for inferred self-motion?

Authors:  Yajie Zhang; Eli Brenner; Jacques Duysens; Sabine Verschueren; Jeroen B J Smeets
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2019-07-24       Impact factor: 1.972

7.  Having several options does not increase the time it takes to make a movement to an adequate end point.

Authors:  Eli Brenner; Jeroen B J Smeets
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2022-05-12       Impact factor: 2.064

8.  Modifying one's hand's trajectory when a moving target's orientation changes.

Authors:  Eli Brenner; Jeroen B J Smeets
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2009-05-29       Impact factor: 1.972

9.  Reach Trajectories Characterize Tactile Localization for Sensorimotor Decision Making.

Authors:  Janina Brandes; Tobias Heed
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2015-10-07       Impact factor: 6.167

10.  How moving backgrounds influence interception.

Authors:  Eli Brenner; Jeroen B J Smeets
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-03-13       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.