Literature DB >> 9827863

Visual distractors differentially interfere with the reaching and grasping components of prehension movements.

M Gangitano1, E Daprati, M Gentilucci.   

Abstract

In the present study we addressed the issue of how an object is visually isolated from surrounding cues when a reaching-grasping (prehension) movement towards it is planned. Subjects were required to reach and grasp an object presented either alone or with a distractor. In five experiments, different degrees of elaboration of the distractor were induced by varying: (1) the position of the distractor (central or peripheral); (2) the time when the distractor was suppressed (immediately or delayed, with respect to stimulus presentation); and (3) the type of distractor analysis (implicit or explicit). In addition, we tested whether the possible effects of the distractor on reaching-grasping were due to the use of an allocentric reference centered on it. This was obtained by comparing the effects of the distractor with those of a stimulus, the target of a placing movement successive to the reaching-grasping. The results of the five experiments can be summarized as follows. The necessary condition for an interference effect on both the reaching and the grasping components was the central presentation of the distractor. When the information on the distractor could be immediately suppressed, an interference effect was observed only on the grasp component. In the case of delayed suppression, an effect was found on the reaching component. Finally, when an overt analysis of the distractor was required, the interference effect disappeared. Two main conclusions have been drawn from the results of the present study. First, comparison between properties of the target and surrounding cues is performed by two independent processes for reaching and grasping an object. The process for the grasp relies more on allocentric cues than that for the reach. Second, when surrounding stimuli are automatically analyzed during visual search of the target, the process of visuo-motor transformation can incorporate their features into the target. In contrast, overt analysis of surrounding stimuli is performed separately from that of the target. Finally, the data of the present study are discussed in support of the premotor theory of attention.

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9827863     DOI: 10.1007/s002210050532

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


  10 in total

1.  Object familiarity affects finger shaping during grasping of fruit stalks.

Authors:  Maurizio Gentilucci
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2003-02-11       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  The bottle and the glass say to me: "pour!".

Authors:  Elisa De Stefani; Alessandro Innocenti; Nicolò Francesco Bernardi; Giovanna Cristina Campione; Maurizio Gentilucci
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2012-03-13       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  On the relations between affordance and representation of the agent's effector.

Authors:  Filippo Barbieri; Antimo Buonocore; Paolo Bernardis; Riccardo Dalla Volta; Maurizio Gentilucci
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2007-02-01       Impact factor: 1.972

4.  How do flanking objects affect reaching and grasping behavior in participants with macular disorders?

Authors:  Shahina Pardhan; Carmen Gonzalez-Alvarez; Ahalya Subramanian; Susana T L Chung
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2012-09-28       Impact factor: 4.799

5.  The spatial alignment effect in near and far space: a kinematic study.

Authors:  Elisa De Stefani; Alessandro Innocenti; Doriana De Marco; Marianna Busiello; Francesca Ferri; Marcello Costantini; Maurizio Gentilucci
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2014-04-20       Impact factor: 1.972

6.  Avoiding moving obstacles.

Authors:  M Pilar Aivar; Eli Brenner; Jeroen B J Smeets
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2008-07-16       Impact factor: 1.972

7.  Object motor representation and language.

Authors:  Maurizio Gentilucci
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2003-08-20       Impact factor: 1.972

8.  Effect of a visual distractor on line bisection.

Authors:  Sergio Chieffi; Alessandro Iavarone; Andrea Viggiano; Marcellino Monda; Sergio Carlomagno
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2012-05-11       Impact factor: 1.972

9.  Gaze direction and request gesture in social interactions.

Authors:  Alessandro Innocenti; Elisa De Stefani; Nicolò Francesco Bernardi; Giovanna Cristina Campione; Maurizio Gentilucci
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-05-31       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Perception, action, and Roelofs effect: a mere illusion of dissociation.

Authors:  Paul Dassonville; Jagdeep Kaur Bala
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2004-10-26       Impact factor: 8.029

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.