Natural prehension in trials without haptic feedback but only when calibration is allowed

Neuropsychologia

Volumn 45, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 288-294

  Bingham, Geoffrey ^a   Coats, Rachel ^b   Mon Williams, Mark ^b  

^a INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Calibration; Feedback; Haptic; Motor control; Prehension; Somatosensory

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CALIBRATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; MOVEMENT (PHYSIOLOGY); NORMAL HUMAN; PERFORMANCE; PREHENSION; RANDOMIZATION;

ADULT; FEEDBACK, PSYCHOLOGICAL; FEMALE; HAND; HAND STRENGTH; HUMANS; MALE; MOVEMENT; PHOTIC STIMULATION; SPACE PERCEPTION;

EID: 34548847525     PISSN: 00283932     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.07.011     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Bingham G.P., Bradley A., Bailey M., and Vinner R. Accommodation, occlusion and disparity matching are used to guide reaching: A comparison of actual versus virtual environments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 27 (2001) 1314-1344
2. Bingham G.P., and Pagano C. The necessity of a perception/action approach to definite distance perception: Monocular distance perception to guide reaching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 24 (1998) 145-168
3. Bingham G.P., Zaal F., Robin D., and Shull J.A. Distortions in definite distance and shape perception as measured by reaching without and with haptic feedback. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 26 (2000) 1436-1460
4. Coello Y., and Grealy M.A. Effect of size and frame of visual field on the accuracy of an aiming movement. Perception 26 (1997) 287-300
5. Goodale M.A., Jakobsen L.S., and Keillor J.M. Differences in the visual control of pantomimed and natural grasping movements. Neuropsychologia 32 (1994) 1159-1178
6. Jacobs D.M., Michaels C.F., and Runeson S. Learning to perceive the relative mass of colliding balls: The effects of ratio-scaling and feedback. Perception & Psychophysics 62 (2000) 1331-1340
7. Jeannerod M. The neural and behavioural organization of goal-directed movements (1988), Oxford University Press, Oxford
8. Loftus A., Goodale M.A., Servos P., and Mon-Williams M. When two eyes are better than one in prehension: Prehension, end-point variance and monocular viewing. Experimental Brain Research 158 (2004) 317-327
9. Loftus A., Murphy S., McKenna I., and Mon-Williams M. A reduced field of view does not cause objects to be seen as closer but causes strategic alterations in movement. Experimental Brain Research 158 (2004) 328-335
10. Magne P., and Coello Y. Retinal and extra-retinal contribution to position coding. Behavioral Brain Research 136 (2002) 277-287
11. Milner A.D., and Goodale M.A. The visual brain in action (1995), Oxford University Press, Oxford
12. Mon-Williams M., and Tresilian J.R. A simple rule of thumb for elegant prehension. Current Biology 11 (2001) 1058-1061
13. Opitz D., Gegenfurtner K.R., and Bülthoff H.H. A comparison of grasping real and virtual objects. Perception 25 (1996) 92-93
14. Runeson S., Juslin P., and Olsson H. Visual perception of dynamic properties: Cue heuristics versus direct-perceptual competence. Psychological Review 107 (2000) 525-555
15. Smeets J.B.J., and Brenner E. A new view on grasping. Motor Control 3 (1999) 237-271
16. Stins J.F., and Michaels C.F. Stimulus-target compatability for reaching movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfomance 23 (1997) 756-767
17. Vindra P., and Viviani P. Frames of reference and control parameters in visuomanual pointing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfomance 24 (1998) 564-591
18. Watt S., Bradshaw M., and Rushton S. Field of view affects reaching, not grasping. Experimental Brain Research 135 (2000) 411-416
19. Woodworth R.S. The accuracy of voluntary movement. Psychological Review 3 (1899) 1-14