Literature DB >> 29502246

On the response function and range dependence of manual estimation.

Karl K Kopiske1,2, Fulvio Domini3,4.   

Abstract

Manual estimates without vision of the hand are thought to constitute a form of cross-modal matching between stimulus size and finger opening. However, few investigations have systematically looked at how manual estimates relate a perceived size to the response across different ranges of stimuli. In two experiments (N = 18 and N = 14), we sought to map out the response properties for (1) manual estimates of visually presented stimuli as well as (2) visual estimates of proprioceptive stimuli, and to test whether these properties depend on the range of stimuli. We also looked at whether scalar variability is present in manual estimates, as predicted by Weber's Law for perceptual tasks. We found that manual estimates scale linearly and with a slope of close to 1 with object sizes up to 90 mm, before participants' hand size limited their responses. In contrast, we found a shallower response slope of about 0.7 when participants performed the inverse task, adjusting the size of a visual object to match a not actively chosen, induced finger opening. Our results were mixed with regards to scalar variability in large objects. We saw some indication of a plateau, but no evidence for an effect of mechanical constraints in the range studied (up to 90 mm). Participants also showed a clear tendency to overestimate small differences when a set of objects differed little in size, but not when stimulus differences were more pronounced.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Finger span; Manual estimation; Sensory magnitude; Sensory matching; Vision

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29502246     DOI: 10.1007/s00221-018-5223-5

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


  34 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

2.  Manual size estimation: a neuropsychological measure of perception?

Authors:  V H Franz
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2003-07-08       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  Finger span: ratio scale, category scale, and JND scale.

Authors:  S S STEVENS; G STONE
Journal:  J Exp Psychol       Date:  1959-02

4.  Grasping Weber's law.

Authors:  Jeroen B J Smeets; Eli Brenner
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2008-12-09       Impact factor: 10.834

5.  On the Theory of Scales of Measurement.

Authors:  S S Stevens
Journal:  Science       Date:  1946-06-07       Impact factor: 47.728

6.  Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs.

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

Review 7.  Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience.

Authors:  Katherine S Button; John P A Ioannidis; Claire Mokrysz; Brian A Nosek; Jonathan Flint; Emma S J Robinson; Marcus R Munafò
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurosci       Date:  2013-04-10       Impact factor: 34.870

8.  Real and illusory issues in the illusion debate (Why two things are sometimes better than one): Commentary on Kopiske et al. (2016).

Authors:  Robert L Whitwell; Melvyn A Goodale
Journal:  Cortex       Date:  2016-07-09       Impact factor: 4.027

9.  An internal model for sensorimotor integration.

Authors:  D M Wolpert; Z Ghahramani; M I Jordan
Journal:  Science       Date:  1995-09-29       Impact factor: 47.728

10.  Bimanual grasping does not adhere to Weber's law.

Authors:  Tzvi Ganel; Gal Namdar; Avigail Mirsky
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-07-25       Impact factor: 4.379

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.