![Background visual cues and memory-guided reaching [An article from: Human Movement Science]](https://www.ebooknetworking.net/books/B00/0RR/bigB000RR1QWW.jpg)
Background visual cues and memory-guided reaching [An article from: Human Movement Science]
Book Details
Author(s)O. Krigolson, M. Heath
PublisherElsevier
ISBN / ASINB000RR1QWW
ISBN-13978B000RR1QW9
MarketplaceFrance 🇫🇷
Description
This digital document is a journal article from Human Movement Science, published by Elsevier in 2004. The article is delivered in HTML format and is available in your Amazon.com Media Library immediately after purchase. You can view it with any web browser.
Description:
Recent research [e.g., Carrozzo, M., Stratta, F., McIntyre, J., & Lacquaniti, F. (2002). Cognitive allocentric representations of visual space shape pointing errors. Experimental Brain Research 147, 426-436; Lemay, M., Bertrand, C. P., & Stelmach, G. E. (2004). Pointing to an allocentric and egocentric remembered target. Motor Control, 8, 16-32] reported that egocentric and allocentric visual frames of reference can be integrated to facilitate the accuracy of goal-directed reaching movements. In the present investigation, we sought to specifically examine whether or not a visual background can facilitate the online, feedback-based control of visually-guided (VG), open-loop (OL), and memory-guided (i.e. 0 and 1000 ms of delay: D0 and D1000) reaches. Two background conditions were examined in this investigation. In the first background condition, four illuminated LEDs positioned in a square surrounding the target location provided a context for allocentric comparisons (visual background: VB). In the second condition, the target object was singularly presented against an empty visual field (no visual background: NVB). Participants (N=14) completed reaching movements to three midline targets in each background (VB, NVB) and visual condition (VG, OL, D0, D1000) for a total of 240 trials. VB reaches were more accurate and less variable than NVB reaches in each visual condition. Moreover, VB reaches elicited longer movement times and spent a greater proportion of the reaching trajectory in the deceleration phase of the movement. Supporting the benefit of a VB for online control, the proportion of endpoint variability explained by the spatial location of the limb at peak deceleration was less for VB as opposed to NVB reaches. These findings suggest that participants are able to make allocentric comparisons between a VB and target (visible or remembered) in addition to egocentric limb and VB comparisons to facilitate online reaching control.
Description:
Recent research [e.g., Carrozzo, M., Stratta, F., McIntyre, J., & Lacquaniti, F. (2002). Cognitive allocentric representations of visual space shape pointing errors. Experimental Brain Research 147, 426-436; Lemay, M., Bertrand, C. P., & Stelmach, G. E. (2004). Pointing to an allocentric and egocentric remembered target. Motor Control, 8, 16-32] reported that egocentric and allocentric visual frames of reference can be integrated to facilitate the accuracy of goal-directed reaching movements. In the present investigation, we sought to specifically examine whether or not a visual background can facilitate the online, feedback-based control of visually-guided (VG), open-loop (OL), and memory-guided (i.e. 0 and 1000 ms of delay: D0 and D1000) reaches. Two background conditions were examined in this investigation. In the first background condition, four illuminated LEDs positioned in a square surrounding the target location provided a context for allocentric comparisons (visual background: VB). In the second condition, the target object was singularly presented against an empty visual field (no visual background: NVB). Participants (N=14) completed reaching movements to three midline targets in each background (VB, NVB) and visual condition (VG, OL, D0, D1000) for a total of 240 trials. VB reaches were more accurate and less variable than NVB reaches in each visual condition. Moreover, VB reaches elicited longer movement times and spent a greater proportion of the reaching trajectory in the deceleration phase of the movement. Supporting the benefit of a VB for online control, the proportion of endpoint variability explained by the spatial location of the limb at peak deceleration was less for VB as opposed to NVB reaches. These findings suggest that participants are able to make allocentric comparisons between a VB and target (visible or remembered) in addition to egocentric limb and VB comparisons to facilitate online reaching control.
