Literature DB >> 23857171

How the required precision influences the way we intercept a moving object.

Eli Brenner1, Rouwen Cañal-Bruland, Robert J van Beers.   

Abstract

Do people perform a given motor task differently if it is easy than if it is difficult? To find out, we asked subjects to intercept moving virtual targets by tapping on them with their fingers. We examined how their behaviour depended on the required precision. Everything about the task was the same on all trials except the extent to which the fingertip and target had to overlap for the target to be considered hit. The target disappeared with a sound if it was hit and deflected away from the fingertip if it was missed. In separate sessions, the required precision was varied from being quite lenient about the required overlap to being very demanding. Requiring a higher precision obviously decreased the number of targets that were hit, but it did not reduce the variability in where the subjects tapped with respect to the target. Requiring a higher precision reduced the systematic deviations from landing at the target centre and the lag-one autocorrelation in such deviations, presumably because subjects received information about smaller deviations from hitting the target centre. We found no evidence for lasting effects of training with a certain required precision. All the results can be reproduced with a model in which the precision of individual movements is independent of the required precision, and in which feedback associated with missing the target is used to reduce systematic errors. We conclude that people do not approach this motor task differently when it is easy than when it is difficult.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23857171     DOI: 10.1007/s00221-013-3645-7

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


  42 in total

1.  System identification applied to a visuomotor task: near-optimal human performance in a noisy changing task.

Authors:  R J Baddeley; H A Ingram; R C Miall
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2003-04-01       Impact factor: 6.167

2.  Optimal feedback control as a theory of motor coordination.

Authors:  Emanuel Todorov; Michael I Jordan
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 24.884

3.  INFORMATION CAPACITY OF DISCRETE MOTOR RESPONSES.

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

4.  Motor learning is optimally tuned to the properties of motor noise.

Authors:  Robert J van Beers
Journal:  Neuron       Date:  2009-08-13       Impact factor: 17.173

5.  Risk sensitivity in a motor task with speed-accuracy trade-off.

Authors:  Arne J Nagengast; Daniel A Braun; Daniel M Wolpert
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2011-03-23       Impact factor: 2.714

6.  Uncertainty of feedback and state estimation determines the speed of motor adaptation.

Authors:  Kunlin Wei; Konrad Körding
Journal:  Front Comput Neurosci       Date:  2010-05-11       Impact factor: 2.380

7.  Overcoming motor "forgetting" through reinforcement of learned actions.

Authors:  Lior Shmuelof; Vincent S Huang; Adrian M Haith; Raymond J Delnicki; Pietro Mazzoni; John W Krakauer
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2012-10-17       Impact factor: 6.167

8.  Decision making, movement planning and statistical decision theory.

Authors:  Julia Trommershäuser; Laurence T Maloney; Michael S Landy
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2008-07-07       Impact factor: 20.229

9.  The inactivation principle: mathematical solutions minimizing the absolute work and biological implications for the planning of arm movements.

Authors:  Bastien Berret; Christian Darlot; Frédéric Jean; Thierry Pozzo; Charalambos Papaxanthis; Jean Paul Gauthier
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2008-10-24       Impact factor: 4.475

10.  How does our motor system determine its learning rate?

Authors:  Robert J van Beers
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-11-12       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  6 in total

1.  Measuring vocal motor skill with a virtual voice-controlled slingshot.

Authors:  Jarrad H Van Stan; Se-Woong Park; Matthew Jarvis; Daryush D Mehta; Robert E Hillman; Dagmar Sternad
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2017-09       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  How Can People Be so Good at Intercepting Accelerating Objects if They Are so Poor at Visually Judging Acceleration?

Authors:  Eli Brenner; Inés Abalo Rodriguez; Victor Estal Muñoz; Sabine Schootemeijer; Yannick Mahieu; Kirsten Veerkamp; Marit Zandbergen; Tim van der Zee; Jeroen Bj Smeets
Journal:  Iperception       Date:  2016-01-27

3.  Motion-in-depth effects on interceptive timing errors in an immersive environment.

Authors:  Joan López-Moliner; Cristina de la Malla
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-11-09       Impact factor: 4.379

4.  Effects of visual blur and contrast on spatial and temporal precision in manual interception.

Authors:  Anna Schroeger; J Walter Tolentino-Castro; Markus Raab; Rouwen Cañal-Bruland
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2021-09-04       Impact factor: 1.972

5.  Flexible prediction of opponent motion with internal representation in interception behavior.

Authors:  Kazushi Tsutsui; Keisuke Fujii; Kazutoshi Kudo; Kazuya Takeda
Journal:  Biol Cybern       Date:  2021-08-11       Impact factor: 2.086

6.  How moving backgrounds influence interception.

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

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.