Literature DB >> 26133803

Hand interception of occluded motion in humans: a test of model-based vs. on-line control.

Barbara La Scaleia1, Myrka Zago2, Francesco Lacquaniti3.   

Abstract

Two control schemes have been hypothesized for the manual interception of fast visual targets. In the model-free on-line control, extrapolation of target motion is based on continuous visual information, without resorting to physical models. In the model-based control, instead, a prior model of target motion predicts the future spatiotemporal trajectory. To distinguish between the two hypotheses in the case of projectile motion, we asked participants to hit a ball that rolled down an incline at 0.2 g and then fell in air at 1 g along a parabola. By varying starting position, ball velocity and trajectory differed between trials. Motion on the incline was always visible, whereas parabolic motion was either visible or occluded. We found that participants were equally successful at hitting the falling ball in both visible and occluded conditions. Moreover, in different trials the intersection points were distributed along the parabolic trajectories of the ball, indicating that subjects were able to extrapolate an extended segment of the target trajectory. Remarkably, this trend was observed even at the very first repetition of movements. These results are consistent with the hypothesis of model-based control, but not with on-line control. Indeed, ball path and speed during the occlusion could not be extrapolated solely from the kinematic information obtained during the preceding visible phase. The only way to extrapolate ball motion correctly during the occlusion was to assume that the ball would fall under gravity and air drag when hidden from view. Such an assumption had to be derived from prior experience.
Copyright © 2015 the American Physiological Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  gravity; internal model; visual extrapolation; visual motion

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26133803      PMCID: PMC4563024          DOI: 10.1152/jn.00475.2015

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurophysiol        ISSN: 0022-3077            Impact factor:   2.714


  74 in total

1.  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

2.  Dissociation of visual, motor and predictive signals in parietal cortex during visual guidance.

Authors:  E N Eskandar; J A Assad
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 24.884

3.  Internal models of target motion: expected dynamics overrides measured kinematics in timing manual interceptions.

Authors:  Myrka Zago; Gianfranco Bosco; Vincenzo Maffei; Marco Iosa; Yuri P Ivanenko; Francesco Lacquaniti
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2003-11-19       Impact factor: 2.714

Review 4.  Computational mechanisms of sensorimotor control.

Authors:  David W Franklin; Daniel M Wolpert
Journal:  Neuron       Date:  2011-11-03       Impact factor: 17.173

5.  Cerebral representations of space and time.

Authors:  M Beudel; R Renken; K L Leenders; B M de Jong
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2008-10-07       Impact factor: 6.556

Review 6.  Internal models and prediction of visual gravitational motion.

Authors:  Myrka Zago; Joseph McIntyre; Patrice Senot; Francesco Lacquaniti
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2008-05-21       Impact factor: 1.886

7.  Extrapolation of visual motion for manual interception.

Authors:  John F Soechting; Martha Flanders
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2008-04-24       Impact factor: 2.714

8.  Visual reaction time and high-speed ball games.

Authors:  P McLeod
Journal:  Perception       Date:  1987       Impact factor: 1.490

9.  Projected free fall trajectories. II. Human experiments.

Authors:  B V Saxberg
Journal:  Biol Cybern       Date:  1987       Impact factor: 2.086

10.  Catching what we can't see: manual interception of occluded fly-ball trajectories.

Authors:  Gianfranco Bosco; Sergio Delle Monache; Francesco Lacquaniti
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-11-14       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  17 in total

1.  The visual representations of motion and of gravity are functionally independent: Evidence of a differential effect of smooth pursuit eye movements.

Authors:  Nuno Alexandre De Sá Teixeira
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2016-04-22       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  Differential contributions to the interception of occluded ballistic trajectories by the temporoparietal junction, area hMT/V5+, and the intraparietal cortex.

Authors:  Sergio Delle Monache; Francesco Lacquaniti; Gianfranco Bosco
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2017-07-12       Impact factor: 2.714

3.  The role of cortical areas hMT/V5+ and TPJ on the magnitude of representational momentum and representational gravity: a transcranial magnetic stimulation study.

Authors:  Nuno Alexandre De Sá Teixeira; Gianfranco Bosco; Sergio Delle Monache; Francesco Lacquaniti
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2019-11-14       Impact factor: 1.972

Review 4.  Representational gravity: Empirical findings and theoretical implications.

Authors:  Timothy L Hubbard
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2020-02

5.  Body orientation contributes to modelling the effects of gravity for target interception in humans.

Authors:  Barbara La Scaleia; Francesco Lacquaniti; Myrka Zago
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  2019-02-06       Impact factor: 5.182

6.  Intercepting virtual balls approaching under different gravity conditions: evidence for spatial prediction.

Authors:  Marta Russo; Benedetta Cesqui; Barbara La Scaleia; Francesca Ceccarelli; Antonella Maselli; Alessandro Moscatelli; Myrka Zago; Francesco Lacquaniti; Andrea d'Avella
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2017-08-02       Impact factor: 2.714

Review 7.  Perceptual-motor styles.

Authors:  Pierre-Paul Vidal; Francesco Lacquaniti
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2021-03-06       Impact factor: 2.064

8.  Grasping in One-Handed Catching in Relation to Performance.

Authors:  Benedetta Cesqui; Marta Russo; Francesco Lacquaniti; Andrea d'Avella
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-07-08       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  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

10.  Where is my hand in space? The internal model of gravity influences proprioception.

Authors:  Maria Gallagher; Breanne Kearney; Elisa Raffaella Ferrè
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2021-06-02       Impact factor: 3.812

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.