Literature DB >> 29923096

Hand anthropometry and the limits of aperture separation determine the utility of Weber's law in grasping and manual estimation.

Naila Ayala1, Gordon Binsted2, Matthew Heath3.   

Abstract

Recent work proposed that biomechanical constraints in aperture separation limit the utility of Weber's law in determining whether dissociable visual codes support grasping and manual estimation. We tested this assertion by having participants precision grasp, manually estimate and complete a method of adjustment task to targets scaled within and beyond the range of their maximal aperture separation (i.e., from 20 to 140% of participant-specific maximal aperture separation: MAS). For grasping and manual estimation tasks, just-noticeable-difference (JND) scores were computed via the within-participant standard deviations in peak grip aperture, whereas method of adjustment JNDs were computed via the within-participant standard deviations in response output. Method of adjustment JNDs increased linearly across the range of targets; that is, responses adhered to Weber's law. Manual estimation JNDs linearly increased for targets 20-100% of MAS and then decreased for targets 120-140% of MAS. In turn, grasping JNDs for targets 20% through 80% of MAS did not differ and were larger than targets 100-140% of MAS. That manual estimation and grasping showed a decrease in JNDs for the largest targets indicates that participants were at their biomechanical limits in aperture shaping, and the fact that the target showing the JND decrease differed between tasks (i.e., manual estimation = 100% of MAS; grasping = 80% of MAS) is attributed to the fact that grasping-but not manual estimation-requires a safety-margin task-set. Accordingly, manual estimations and grasping across a range of functionally 'graspable' targets, respectively, adhered to and violated Weber's law-a result interpreted to reflect the use of dissociable visual codes.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Grasping; Manual estimation; Perception; Psychophysics; Weber’s law

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29923096     DOI: 10.1007/s00221-018-5311-6

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


  19 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.  The precision of size constancy.

Authors:  S P McKee; L Welch
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1992-08       Impact factor: 1.886

4.  Grasping Weber's law.

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

5.  The Psychophysics Toolbox.

Authors:  D H Brainard
Journal:  Spat Vis       Date:  1997

6.  Measuring handedness with questionnaires.

Authors:  M P Bryden
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  1977       Impact factor: 3.139

7.  Both vision-for-perception and vision-for-action follow Weber's law at small object sizes, but violate it at larger sizes.

Authors:  Nicola Bruno; Stefano Uccelli; Eva Viviani; Claudio de'Sperati
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2016-08-21       Impact factor: 3.139

8.  Constraints on human arm movement trajectories.

Authors:  R G Marteniuk; C L MacKenzie; M Jeannerod; S Athenes; C Dugas
Journal:  Can J Psychol       Date:  1987-09

9.  Vision for action and perception elicit dissociable adherence to Weber's law across a range of 'graspable' target objects.

Authors:  Matthew Heath; Joseph Manzone; Michaela Khan; Shirin Davarpanah Jazi
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2017-07-18       Impact factor: 1.972

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.