Literature DB >> 25311388

Non-obstructing 3D depth cues influence reach-to-grasp kinematics.

Christopher J Worssam1, Lewis C Meade, Jason D Connolly.   

Abstract

It has been demonstrated that both visual feedback and the presence of certain types of non-target objects in the workspace can affect kinematic measures and the trajectory path of the moving hand during reach-to-grasp movements. Yet no study to date has examined the possible effect of providing non-obstructing three-dimensional (3D) depth cues within the workspace and with consistent retinal inputs and whether or not these alter manual prehension movements. Participants performed a series of reach-to-grasp movements in both open- (without visual feedback) and closed-loop (with visual feedback) conditions in the presence of one of three possible 3D depth cues. Here, it is reported that preventing online visual feedback (or not) and the presence of a particular depth cue had a profound effect on kinematic measures for both the reaching and grasping components of manual prehension-despite the fact that the 3D depth cues did not act as a physical obstruction at any point. The depth cues modulated the trajectory of the reaching hand when the target block was located on the left side of the workspace but not on the right. These results are discussed in relation to previous reports and implications for brain-computer interface decoding algorithms are provided.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25311388     DOI: 10.1007/s00221-014-4119-2

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


  30 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.  Effects of object shape and visual feedback on hand configuration during grasping.

Authors:  Luis F Schettino; Sergei V Adamovich; Howard Poizner
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2003-06-03       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  Reaching for virtual objects: binocular disparity and the control of prehension.

Authors:  Paul B Hibbard; Mark F Bradshaw
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2002-11-19       Impact factor: 1.972

4.  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

5.  The role of posterior parietal cortex in visually guided reaching movements in humans.

Authors:  C Kertzman; U Schwarz; T A Zeffiro; M Hallett
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  1997-03       Impact factor: 1.972

6.  Why do the eyes prefer the index finger? Simultaneous recording of eye and hand movements during precision grasping.

Authors:  Cristiana Cavina-Pratesi; Constanze Hesse
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2013-04-18       Impact factor: 2.240

7.  Delayed grasping of a Müller-Lyer figure.

Authors:  D A Westwood; T McEachern; E A Roy
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 1.972

8.  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

9.  Missing in action: the effect of obstacle position and size on avoidance while reaching.

Authors:  Craig S Chapman; Melvyn A Goodale
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2008-08-21       Impact factor: 1.972

Review 10.  Restoring sensorimotor function through intracortical interfaces: progress and looming challenges.

Authors:  Sliman J Bensmaia; Lee E Miller
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurosci       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 34.870

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.