Poor shape perception is the reason reaches-to-grasp are visually guided online

Perception and Psychophysics

Volumn 70, Issue 6, 2008, Pages 1032-1046

  Lee, Young Lim ^a   Crabtree, Charles E ^b   Norman, J Farley ^b   Bingham, Geoffrey P ^a  

^a INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b WESTERN KENTUCKY UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; HAND STRENGTH; HUMAN; INTERNET; PATTERN RECOGNITION; VISION;

ADULT; FORM PERCEPTION; HAND STRENGTH; HUMANS; INTERNET; JUDGMENT; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 50249139686     PISSN: 00315117     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/PP.70.6.1032     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. BINGHAM, G. P. (2005). Calibration of distance and size does not calibrate shape information: Comparison of dynamic monocular and static and dynamic binocular vision. Ecological Psychology, 17, 55-74.
2. BINGHAM, G. [P.], COATS, R., & MON- WILLIAMS, M. (2007). Natural prehension in trials without haptic feedback but only when calibration is allowed. Neuropsychologia, 45, 288-294.
3. BINGHAM, G. P., CROWELL, J. A., & TODD, J. T. (2004). Distortions of distance and shape are not produced by a single continuous transformation of reach space. Perception & Psychophysics, 66, 152-169.
4. BINGHAM, G. P., HUGHES, K., & MON- WILLIAMS, M. (2008). The coordination patterns observed when two hands reach-to-grasp separate objects. Experimental Brain Research, 184, 283-293.
5. BINGHAM, G. P., & MON-WILLIAMS, M. (2004). Visually guided reaching allows both slope and intercept of distance functions to be recalibrated without awareness. Journal of Vision, 4(8), 22a.
6. BINGHAM, G. P., ZAAL, F. Z., ROBIN, D., & SHULL, J. A. (2000). Distortions in definite distance and shape perception as measured by reaching without and with haptic feedback. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 26, 1436-1460.
7. COATS, R., BINGHAM, G. P., & MON- WILLIAMS, M. (in press). Calibrating grasp size and reach distance: Interactions reveal integral organization of reaching-to-grasp movements. Experimental Brain Research.
8. COATS, R., MON-WILLIAMS, M., & BINGHAM, G. P. (2004). Differences between natural and unnatural prehension are not inevitable if calibration is allowed. Journal of Vision, 4(8), 406a.
9. JOHNSTON, E. B. (1991). Systematic distortions of shape from stereopsis. Vision Research, 31, 1351-1360.
10. KOENDERINK, J. J. (1990). Solid shape. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11. LEE, Y, LIND, M., & BINGHAM, G. P. (2007). Shape perception is merely ambiguous, not systematically distorted. Journal of Vision, 7(9), 842a.
12. LEE, Y., LIND, M., & BINGHAM, G. P. (2008). Shape perception is merely ambiguous, not systematically distorted. Manuscript submitted for publication.
13. LIND, M., BINGHAM, G. P., & FORSELL, C. (2003). Metric 3D structure in visualizations. Information Visualization, 2, 51-57.
14. MON-WILLIAMS, M., & BINGHAM, G. P. (2005). Task constraints alter prehension movements qualitatively and quantitatively. Journal of Vision, 5(8), 124a.
15. MON-WILLIAMS, M., & BINGHAM, G. P. (2007). Calibrating reach distance to visual targets. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 33, 645-656.
16. MON-WILLIAMS, M., & BINGHAM, G. P. (2008a). Calibration of grasp orientation (and wiggle room for errors in object orientation perception). Journal of Vision, 8(6), 301a.
17. MON-WILLIAMS, M., & BINGHAM, G. P. (2008b). Slam, stop, and fly-through: The coordinative timing and structure of reach-to-grasp movements varies with task. Manuscript submitted for publication.
18. MON-WILLIAMS, M., COATS, R., & BINGHAM, G. P. (2004). Reaching with feeling. Journal of Vision, 4(8), 411a.
19. NORMAN, J. F., & LAPPIN, J. S. (1992). The detection of surface curvatures defined by optical motion. Perception & Psychophysics, 51, 386-396.
20. NORMAN, J. F., & TODD, J. T. (1993). The perceptual analysis of structure from motion for rotating objects undergoing affine stretching transformations. Perception & Psychophysics, 53, 279-291.
21. NORMAN, J. F., & TODD, J. T. (1996). The discriminability of local surface structure. Perception, 25, 381-398.
22. NORMAN, J. F., TODD, J. T., NORMAN, H. F., CLAYTON, A. M., & MCBRIDE, T. R. (2006). Visual discrimination of local surface structure: Slant, tilt, and curvedness. Vision Research, 46, 1057-1069.
23. NORMAN, J. F., TODD, J. X, & PHILLIPS, F. (1995). The visual perception of surface orientation from multiple sources of optical information. Perception & Psychophysics, 57, 629-636.
24. PEDHAZUR, E. J. (1982). Multiple regression in behavioral research: Explanation and prediction (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
25. PEROTTI, V. J., TODD, J. T., LAPPIN, J. S., & PHILLIPS, F. (1998). The perception of surface curvature from optical motion. Perception & Psychophysics, 60, 377-388.
26. SHEEHAN, S. R., BINGHAM, G. P., & MON-WILLIAMS, M. (2008). Task space calibration in Cartesian coordinates. Journal of Vision, 8(6), 481a.
27. TITTLE, J. S., & BRAUNSTEIN, M. L. (1993). Recovery of 3-D shape from binocular disparity and structure from motion. Perception & Psychophysics, 54, 157-169.
28. TITTLE, J. S., TODD, J. T., PEROTTI, V. J., & NORMAN, J. F. (1995). Systematic distortion of perceived three-dimensional structure from motion and binocular stereopsis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 21, 663-678.
29. TODD, J. T., & BRESSAN, P. (1990). The perception of 3-dimensional affine structure from minimal apparent motion sequences. Perception & Psychophysics, 48, 419-430.
30. TODD, J. T., & NORMAN, J. F. (1991). The visual perception of smoothly curved surfaces from minimal apparent motion sequences. Perception & Psychophysics, 50, 509-523.
31. TODD, J. T., & NORMAN, J. F. (2003). The visual perception of 3-D shape from multiple cues: Are observers capable of perceiving metric structure? Perception & Psychophysics, 65, 31-47.
32. TODD, J. T., TITTLE, J. S., & NORMAN, J. F. (1995). Distortions of three-dimensional space in the perceptual analysis of motion and stereo. Perception, 24, 75-86.