Literature DB >> 22923224

The effect of removing visual information on reach control in young children.

Erin Babinsky1, Oliver Braddick, Janette Atkinson.   

Abstract

Visual information about the hand, the reach space, and a target can all contribute to the control of a reaching movement. When visual information is removed, both feedforward mechanisms (involved in planning the movement) and feedback mechanisms (involved in correcting errors) may be affected. This study looks at how 4- to 5-year-old children use visual information to guide reaching movements. Children reached for a toy object in four conditions--in the light, in the dark while the toy was glowing, and in complete darkness after a 0-s delay and a 4-s delay. When a reach in the glowing condition was compared with a reach in the light, reaches were more curved, had a longer duration, and earlier time-to-peak-velocity than a reach in the light but the number of grasping responses were comparable to in the light condition. When a reach in the two dark conditions (0- and 4-s) was compared with a reach in the light, the number of grasping responses decreased and 14 and 31 % of reaches resulted in a miss, that is, no contact was made with the object. While we did not find any significant kinematic differences between the 0- and 4-s dark conditions, there was a significantly larger number of misses in the 4-s dark condition, suggesting that memory of target position may decay over time. Overall, removing vision of the hand and reach space in the glowing condition appears to affect the planning of a reach (as vision of the hand was not available at reach initiation) and feedback control, while removing vision of the object in the dark conditions has an effect on endpoint response as we found that children experience difficulty retrieving the object in the dark. While young children demonstrate more adult-like reach control (i.e., relatively longer deceleration time, increased reach duration) under reduced feedback conditions, they have difficulty retrieving the object in the dark, particularly after a 4-s delay, and it is possible that mechanisms guiding predictive control and visual memory are still developing.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22923224     DOI: 10.1007/s00221-012-3216-3

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


  50 in total

1.  The role of visual feedback of hand position in the control of manual prehension.

Authors:  J D Connolly; M A Goodale
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  Visual Information and Object Size in the Control of Reaching.

Authors:  N. E. Berthier; R. K. Clifton; V. Gullapalli; D. D. McCall; D. J. Robin
Journal:  J Mot Behav       Date:  1996-09       Impact factor: 1.328

3.  INFORMATION CAPACITY OF DISCRETE MOTOR RESPONSES.

Authors:  P M FITTS; J R PETERSON
Journal:  J Exp Psychol       Date:  1964-02

4.  Development of prehension movements in children: a kinematic study.

Authors:  J P Kuhtz-Buschbeck; H Stolze; K Jöhnk; A Boczek-Funcke; M Illert
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 1.972

5.  Improvements in proprioceptive functioning influence multisensory-motor integration in 7- to 13-year-old children.

Authors:  Bradley R King; Melissa M Pangelinan; Florian A Kagerer; Jane E Clark
Journal:  Neurosci Lett       Date:  2010-07-30       Impact factor: 3.046

6.  Visual control of reaching and grasping in infants.

Authors:  M E McCarty; D H Ashmead
Journal:  Dev Psychol       Date:  1999-05

7.  The effect of viewing the static hand prior to movement onset on pointing kinematics and variability.

Authors:  Y Rossetti; G Stelmach; M Desmurget; C Prablanc; M Jeannerod
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  1994       Impact factor: 1.972

8.  A dissociation of perception and action in normal human observers: the effect of temporal-delay.

Authors:  Mark F Bradshaw; Simon J Watt
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 3.139

9.  When two eyes are better than one in prehension: monocular viewing and end-point variance.

Authors:  Andrea Loftus; Philip Servos; Melvyn A Goodale; Nicole Mendarozqueta; Mark Mon-Williams
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2004-05-26       Impact factor: 1.972

10.  Quantitative assessment of infant reaching movements.

Authors:  L Fetters; J Todd
Journal:  J Mot Behav       Date:  1987-06       Impact factor: 1.328

View more
  5 in total

1.  Visual-motor coordination in natural reaching of young children and adults.

Authors:  John M Franchak; Chen Yu
Journal:  Cogsci       Date:  2015-07

2.  Fine Motor Differences and Prenatal Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors Exposure.

Authors:  Marie-Claire A E Partridge; Amy L Salisbury; Linda L LaGasse
Journal:  J Pediatr       Date:  2016-05-20       Impact factor: 4.406

3.  Influence of visual feedback persistence on visuo-motor skill improvement.

Authors:  Alyssa Unell; Zachary M Eisenstat; Ainsley Braun; Abhinav Gandhi; Sharon Gilad-Gutnick; Shlomit Ben-Ami; Pawan Sinha
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-08-30       Impact factor: 4.379

4.  Developmental differences in the prospective organisation of goal-directed movement between children with autism and typically developing children: A smart tablet serious game study.

Authors:  Yu Wei Chua; Szu-Ching Lu; Anna Anzulewicz; Krzystof Sobota; Christos Tachtatzis; Ivan Andonovic; Philip Rowe; Jonathan Delafield-Butt
Journal:  Dev Sci       Date:  2021-12-06

Review 5.  The contributions of vision and haptics to reaching and grasping.

Authors:  Kayla D Stone; Claudia L R Gonzalez
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2015-09-16
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.