Search

People rely upon sensory information in the environment to guide their actions. Ongoing goal-directed arm movements are constantly adjusted to the latest estimate of both the target and hand's positions. Does the continuous guidance of ongoing arm movements also consider the latest visual information of the position of obstacles in the surrounding? To find out, we asked participants to slide their finger across a screen to intercept a laterally moving virtual target while moving through a gap that was created by two virtual circular obstacles. At a fixed time during each trial, the target suddenly jumped slightly laterally while still continuing to move. In half the trials, the size of the gap changed at the same moment as the target jumped. As expected, participants adjusted their movements in response to the target jump. Importantly, the magnitude of this response depended on the new size of the gap. If participants were told that the circles were irrelevant, changing the gap between them had no effect on the responses. This shows that obstacles' instantaneous positions can be considered when visually guiding goal-directed movements., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

The size of an object equals the distance between the positions of its opposite edges. However, human sensory processing for perceiving positions differs from that for perceiving size. Which of these two information sources is used to control grip aperture? In this paper, we answer this question by prism adaptation of single-digit movements of the index finger and thumb. We previously showed that it is possible to adapt the index finger and thumb in opposite directions and that this adaptation induces an aftereffect in grip aperture in grasping. This finding suggests that grasping is based on the perceived positions of the contact points. However, it might be compatible with grasping being controlled based on size provided that the opposing prism adaptation leads to changes in visually perceived size or proprioception of hand opening. In that case, one would predict a similar aftereffect in manually indicating the perceived size. In contrast, if grasping is controlled based on information about the positions of the edges, the aftereffect in grasping is due to altered position information, so one would predict no aftereffect in manually indicating the perceived size. Our present experiment shows that there was no aftereffect in manually indicating perceived size. We conclude that grip aperture during grasping is based on perceived positions rather than on perceived size., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

When interacting with the environment, our manual actions are often preceded by an eye movement. This suggests that the processes underlying target selection in hand and eye movements may be coupled. It is known that when a distractor is presented close to a target, the endpoint of an eye movement will be biased towards the distractor. The size of this so-called global effect decreases when more viewing time is available. Here we investigate whether a similar effect is also present in hand movements. If the processes underlying target selection for hand and eye movements are indeed coupled, a similar bias should be present in hand movements as well. To test this, we adopted a classic global effect paradigm but applied it to goal-directed hand movements. We show that the endpoints of hand movements are unbiased for all but one participant, irrespective of the viewing time. These results suggest that the processes underlying target selection for hand movements operate independently from those for eye movements., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

There is extensive literature debating whether perceived size is used to guide grasping. A possible reason for not using judged size is that using judged positions might lead to more precise movements. As this argument does not hold for small objects and all studies showing an effect of the Ebbinghaus illusion on grasping used small objects, we hypothesized that size information is used for small objects but not for large ones. Using a modified diagonal illusion, we obtained an effect of about 10% on perceptual judgements, without an effect on grasping, irrespective of object size. We therefore reject our precision hypothesis. We discuss the results in the framework of grasping as moving digits to positions on an object. We conclude that the reported disagreement on the effect of illusions is because the Ebbinghaus illusion not only affects size, but-unlike most size illusions-also affects perceived positions.

If the surrounding of a visual target unexpectedly starts to move during a fast goal-directed hand movement, the hand reflexively moves along with it. This is known as the 'manual following response'. One explanation for this response is that it is a compensation for inferred self-motion in space. Previous studies have shown that background motion gives rise to both postural responses and deviations in goal-directed hand movements. To evaluate whether compensation for inferred self-motion is responsible for the manual responses we examined whether galvanic stimulation of the vestibular system would give rise to similar deviations in hand movements. Standing participants tried to quickly tap on targets that were presented on a horizontal screen. Participants could infer self-motion on some of the trials, either from galvanic vestibular stimulation or from background motion. Both perturbations took place during the hand movement. It took both the head and hand about 45 ms longer to respond to background motion than to respond to galvanic stimulation. The head responded in a similar manner to both types of perturbations. The hand responded about as expected to galvanic stimulation, but much more vigorously to background motion. Thus, the manual response to background motion is probably not a direct consequence of trying to compensate for inferred self-motion. Perhaps the manual following response is a consequence of an error in binding motion information to objects.

Does the predictability of a target's movement and of the interception location influence how the target is intercepted? In a first experiment, we manipulated the predictability of the interception location. A target moved along a haphazardly curved path, and subjects attempted to tap on it when it entered a hitting zone. The hitting zone was either a large ring surrounding the target's starting position (ring condition) or a small disk that became visible before the target appeared (disk condition). The interception location gradually became apparent in the ring condition, whereas it was immediately apparent in the disk condition. In the ring condition, subjects pursued the target with their gaze. Their heads and hands gradually moved in the direction of the future tap position. In the disk condition, subjects immediately directed their gaze toward the hitting zone by moving both their eyes and heads. They also moved their hands to the future tap position sooner than in the ring condition. In a second and third experiment, we made the target's movement more predictable. Although this made the targets easier to pursue, subjects now shifted their gaze to the hitting zone soon after the target appeared in the ring condition. In the disk condition, they still usually shifted their gaze to the hitting zone at the beginning of the trial. Together, the experiments show that predictability of the interception location is more important than predictability of target movement in determining how we move to intercept targets. NEW & NOTEWORTHY We show that if people are required to intercept a target at a known location, they direct their gaze to the interception point as soon as they can rather than pursuing the target with their eyes for as long as possible. The predictability of the interception location rather than the predictability of the path to that location largely determines how the eyes, head, and hand move.