Estimation of reach in peripersonal and extrapersonal space: A developmental view

Developmental Neuropsychology

Volumn 32, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 749-756

  Gabbard, Carl ^a   Cordova, Alberto ^a   Ammar, Diala ^a  

^a TEXAS A AND M UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ADULT; AGE DISTRIBUTION; ARTICLE; CHILD; DEPTH PERCEPTION; DISTANCE PERCEPTION; ERROR; HAND MOVEMENT; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; NORMAL HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TASK PERFORMANCE;

EID: 36049010682     PISSN: 87565641     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/87565640701539451     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Bradshaw, M. F., Watt, S. J., Elliot, K. M., & Riddell, P. M. (2004). The effects of pre-movement delay on the kinematics of prehension in middle childhood. Human Movement Science, 23, 771-787.
2. Cardio, C., Grosofsky, A., Reichel, F. D., Soloan, H. Y., & Turvey, M. T. (1989). Visually perceiving what is reachable. Ecological Psychology, 1, 27-54.
3. Coren, S. (1993). The lateral preference inventory for measurement of handedness, footedness, eyedness, and earedness: Norms for young adults. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 31, 1-3.
4. Fischer, M. H. (2000). Estimating reachability: Whole-body engagement or postural stability? Human Movement Science, 19, 297-318.
5. Gabbard, C., Amraar, D., & Lee, S. (2006). Perceived reachability in single and multiple degree of free-dom workspace. Journal of Motor Behavior, 38, 423-430.
6. Gabbard, C., Amraar, D., & Rodrigues, L. (2005a). Perceived reachability in hemispace. Brain and Cognition, 58, 172-177.
7. Gabbard, C., Ammar, D., & Rodrigues. (2005b). Handedness effects on mentally stimulated reaching. Human Movement Science, 24, 484-495.
8. Gibson, J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
9. Goodale, M. A., & Humphrey, G. K. (1998). The objects of action and perception. Cognition, 67, 181-207.
10. Hanisch, C., Konczak, J., & Dohle, C. (2001 ). The effect of Ebbinghaus illusion on grasping behavior of children. Experimental Brain Research, 137, 237-245.
11. Heft, H. ( 1993). A methodological note on overestimates of reaching distance: Distinguishing between perceptual and analytical judgments. Ecological Psychology, 5, 256-271.
12. Johnson S., Corballis P., & Gazzaniga, M. (2001). Within grasp but out of reach: Evidence for a double dissociation between imagined hand and arm movements in the left cerebral hemisphere. Neuropsychology, 39, 36-50.
13. Mark, L. S., Nemeth, K., Gardner, D., Dainoff, M. J., Duffy, M., & Grandt, K. (1997). Postural dynamics and the preferred critical boundary for visually guided reaching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23, 1365-1379.
14. McKenzie, B. E., Skouteris, H., Day, R. H., Hartman, B., & Yonas, A. (1993). Effective action by infants to contact objects by reaching and leaning. Child Development, 64, 415-429.
15. Rival, C., Olivier, I., Ceyte, H, & Bard, C. (2004). Age-related differences in the visual processes implied in perception and action: Distance and location parameters. Experimental Child Psychology, 87, 107-124.
16. Robinovitch, S. N. (1998). Perception of postural limits during reaching. Journal of Motor Behavior, 30, 352-358.
17. Rochat, P. (1995). Perceived reachability for self and for others by 3- and 5-year-olds and adults. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 59, 317-333.
18. Rochat, P., Goubet, N., & Senders, S.J. (1999). To reach or not to reach? Perception of body effectivities by young infants. Infant & Child Development, 8, 129-148.
19. Rochat, P., & Wraga, M. (1997). An account of the systematic error in judging what is reachable. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23, 199-212.
20. Schwebel, D. C., & Plumert, J. M. (1999). Longitudinal and concurrent relations among temperament, ability estimation, and injury proneness. Child Development, 70, 700-712.
21. Sirigu, A., & Duhamel, J. R. (2001). Motor and visual imagery as two complementary but neurally dissociable mental processes. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 13, 910-919.
22. Stevens, J. A. (2005). Interference effects demonstrate distinct roles for visual and motor imagery during the mental representation of human action. Cognition, 95, 329-350.