Literature DB >> 18759994

A comparison of visuomotor cue integration strategies for object placement and prehension.

Hal S Greenwald1, David C Knill.   

Abstract

Visual cue integration strategies are known to depend on cue reliability and how rapidly the visual system processes incoming information. We investigated whether these strategies also depend on differences in the information demands for different natural tasks. Using two common goal-oriented tasks, prehension and object placement, we determined whether monocular and binocular information influence estimates of three-dimensional (3D) orientation differently depending on task demands. Both tasks rely on accurate 3D orientation estimates, but 3D position is potentially more important for grasping. Subjects placed an object on or picked up a disc in a virtual environment. On some trials, the monocular cues (aspect ratio and texture compression) and binocular cues (e.g., binocular disparity) suggested slightly different 3D orientations for the disc; these conflicts either were present upon initial stimulus presentation or were introduced after movement initiation, which allowed us to quantify how information from the cues accumulated over time. We analyzed the time-varying orientations of subjects' fingers in the grasping task and those of the object in the object placement task to quantify how different visual cues influenced motor control. In the first experiment, different subjects performed each task, and those performing the grasping task relied on binocular information more when orienting their hands than those performing the object placement task. When subjects in the second experiment performed both tasks in interleaved sessions, binocular cues were still more influential during grasping than object placement, and the different cue integration strategies observed for each task in isolation were maintained. In both experiments, the temporal analyses showed that subjects processed binocular information faster than monocular information, but task demands did not affect the time course of cue processing. How one uses visual cues for motor control depends on the task being performed, although how quickly the information is processed appears to be task invariant.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18759994      PMCID: PMC2943639          DOI: 10.1017/S0952523808080668

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Vis Neurosci        ISSN: 0952-5238            Impact factor:   3.241


  30 in total

Review 1.  A new view on grasping.

Authors:  J B Smeets; E Brenner
Journal:  Motor Control       Date:  1999-07       Impact factor: 1.422

Review 2.  Separate visual representations in the planning and control of action.

Authors:  Scott Glover
Journal:  Behav Brain Sci       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 12.579

3.  Integrating visual cues for motor control: a matter of time.

Authors:  Hal S Greenwald; David C Knill; Jeffrey A Saunders
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 1.886

4.  Background changes delay information represented in macaque V1 neurons.

Authors:  Xin Huang; Michael A Paradiso
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2005-08-17       Impact factor: 2.714

5.  Background changes delay the perceptual availability of form information.

Authors:  Xin Huang; Seth Blau; Michael A Paradiso
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2005-08-17       Impact factor: 2.714

6.  Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs.

Authors:  G R Loftus; M E Masson
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  1994-12

7.  The imprecision of stereopsis.

Authors:  S P McKee; D M Levi; S F Bowne
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1990       Impact factor: 1.886

Review 8.  Measurement and modeling of depth cue combination: in defense of weak fusion.

Authors:  M S Landy; L T Maloney; E B Johnston; M Young
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1995-02       Impact factor: 1.886

9.  Slant-tilt: the visual encoding of surface orientation.

Authors:  K A Stevens
Journal:  Biol Cybern       Date:  1983       Impact factor: 2.086

10.  Do humans optimally integrate stereo and texture information for judgments of surface slant?

Authors:  David C Knill; Jeffrey A Saunders
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 1.886

View more
  14 in total

1.  A three dimensional view of stereopsis in dentistry.

Authors:  M A Mon-Williams; F Mushtaq; R M Wilkie; B Khambay; A Keeling; M Manogue
Journal:  Br Dent J       Date:  2015-11-27       Impact factor: 1.626

2.  The role of binocular vision in grasping: a small stimulus-set distorts results.

Authors:  Bruce D Keefe; Simon J Watt
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2009-02-06       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  Online processing of shape information for control of grasping.

Authors:  Zhongting Chen; Jeffrey A Saunders
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2015-07-21       Impact factor: 1.972

4.  Perceptual attraction in tool use: evidence for a reliability-based weighting mechanism.

Authors:  Nienke B Debats; Marc O Ernst; Herbert Heuer
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2017-01-18       Impact factor: 2.714

5.  Binocular and monocular depth cues in online feedback control of 3D pointing movement.

Authors:  Bo Hu; David C Knill
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2011-06-30       Impact factor: 2.240

6.  Automatic adjustments toward unseen visual targets during grasping movements.

Authors:  Zhongting Chen; Jeffrey A Saunders
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2016-03-15       Impact factor: 1.972

Review 7.  The cognitive neuroscience of prehension: recent developments.

Authors:  Scott T Grafton
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2010-06-08       Impact factor: 1.972

8.  Cue integration outside central fixation: a study of grasping in depth.

Authors:  Hal S Greenwald; David C Knill
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2009-02-10       Impact factor: 2.240

9.  Early dynamics of stereoscopic surface slant perception.

Authors:  Baptiste Caziot; Benjamin T Backus; Esther Lin
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2017-12-01       Impact factor: 2.240

10.  Grip type and task goal modify reach-to-grasp performance in post-stroke hemiparesis.

Authors:  Sydney Y Schaefer; Stacey L DeJong; Kendra M Cherry; Catherine E Lang
Journal:  Motor Control       Date:  2012-02-16       Impact factor: 1.422

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.