Response modes influence the accuracy of monocular and binocular reaching movements

Motor Control

Volumn 12, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 252-266

  Heath, Matthew ^a   Neely, Kristina ^a   Krigolson, Olav ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Binocular cues; Feedback; Kinematics; Monocular cues; Reaching

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ADULT; ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; BINOCULAR VISION; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEEDBACK SYSTEM; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LIMB MOVEMENT; MALE; MONOCULAR VISION; MOTOR PERFORMANCE; NORMAL HUMAN; REACTION TIME; STIMULUS RESPONSE;

ADULT; CUES; FEEDBACK; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MOTOR SKILLS; REACTION TIME; VISION, BINOCULAR; VISION, MONOCULAR;

EID: 52049095104     PISSN: 10871640     EISSN: 15432696     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1123/mcj.12.3.252     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Bradshaw, M.F., & Elliott, K.M. (2003). The role of binocular information in the "on-line" control of prehension. Spatial Vision, 16, 295-309.
2. Bradshaw, M.F., Elliott, K.M., Watt, S.J., Hibbard, P.B., Davies, I.R.L., & Simpson, P.J. (2004). Binocular cues and the control of prehension. Spatial Vision, 17, 95-110.
3. Bryden, M.P. (1977). Measuring handedness with questionnaires. Neuropsychologia, 15, 617-624.
4. Coull, J., Weir, P.L., Tremblay, L., Weeks, D.J., & Elliott, D. (2000). Monocular and binocular vision in the control of goal-directed movement. Journal of Motor Behavior, 32, 347-360.
5. Crone, R.A. (1992). The history of stereoscopy. Documenta Ophthalmologica, 81, 1-16.
6. Elliott, D., Helsen, W.F., & Chua, R. (2001). A century later: Woodworth's (1899) two-component model of goal-directed aiming. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 342-357.
7. Glover, S. (2004). Separate visual representations in the planning and control of action. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27, 3-78.
8. Glover, S., & Dixon, P. (2001). Motor adaptation to an optical illusion. Experimental Brain Research, 137, 254-258.
9. Heath, M. (2005). Role of limb and target vision in the online control of memory-guided reaches. Motor Control, 9, 281-311.
10. Heath, M., & Binsted, G. (2007). Visuomotor memory for target location in near and far reaching spaces. Journal of Motor Behavior, 39, 169-177.
11. Heath, M., Neely, K., & Binsted, G. (2007). Allocentric visual cues influence online limb adjustments. Motor Control, 11, 54-70.
12. Heath, M., Rival, C., & Binsted, G. (2004). Can the motor system resolve a premovement bias in grip aperture? Online analysis of grasping the Müller-Lyer illusion. Experimental Brain Research, 158, 378-384.
13. Heath, M., Rival, C., & Neely, K. (2006). Visual feedback schedules influence visuomotor resistance to the Müller-Lyer figures. Experimental Brain Research, 168, 348-356.
14. Heath, M., & Westwood, D.A. (2003). Can a visual representation support the online control of memory-dependent reaching? Evidence from a variable spatial mapping paradigm. Motor Control, 7, 346-361.
15. Heath, M., Westwood, D.A., & Binsted, G. (2004). The control of memory-guided reaching movements in peripersonal space. Motor Control, 8, 76-106.
16. Held, R., & Gottlieb, N. (1958). Technique for studying adaptation to disarranged hand-eye coordination. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 8, 83-86.
17. Jakobson, L.S., & Goodale, M.A. (1991). Factors affecting higher-order movement planning: A kinematic analysis of human prehension. Experimental Brain Research, 86, 199-208.
18. Jeannerod, M. (1986). Mechanisms of visuomotor coordination: A study in normal and brain-damaged subjects. Neuropsychologia, 24, 41-78.
19. Khan, M.A., Elliott, D., Coull, J., Chua, R., & Lyons, J. (2002). Optimal control strategies under different feedback schedules: Kinematic evidence. Journal of Motor Behavior, 34, 45-57.
20. Knill, D.C. (2005). Reaching for visual cues to depth: The brain combines depth cues differently for motor control and perception. Journal of Vision, 5, 103-115.
21. Krigolson, O., Clark, N., Heath, M., & Binsted, G. (2007). The proximity of visual landmarks impacts reaching performance. Spatial Vision, 20, 317-336.
22. Krigolson, O., & Heath, M. (2004). Background visual cues and memory-guided reaching. Human Movement Science, 23, 861-877.
23. Krigolson, O., & Heath, M. (2006). A lower visual field advantage for endpoint stability but no advantage for online movement precision. Experimental Brain Research, 170, 127-135.
24. Loftus, A., Servos, P., Goodale, M.A., Mendarozqueta, N., & Mon-Williams, M. (2004). When two eyes are better than one in prehension: Monocular viewing and end-point variance. Experimental Brain Research, 158, 317-327.
25. Marotta, J.J., Behrmann, M., & Goodale, M.A. (1997). The removal of binocular cues disrupts the calibration of grasping in patients with visual form agnosia. Experimental Brain Research, 116, 113-121.
26. Melmoth, D.R., & Grant, S. (2006). Advantages of binocular vision for the control of reaching and grasping. Experimental Brain Research, 171, 371-388.
27. Miles, W.R. (1930). Ocular dominance in human adults. The Journal of General Psychology, 3, 412-420.
28. Neely, K.A., Tessmer, A., Binsted, G., & Heath, M. (2008). Goal-directed reaching: Movement strategies influence the weighting of allocentric and egocentric visual cues. Experimental Brain Research, 186, 375-384.
29. Prablanc, C., Echallier, J.E., Jeannerod, M., & Komilis, E. (1979). Optimal response of eye and hand motor systems in pointing at a visual target. II. Static and dynamic visual cues in the control of hand movement. Biological Cybernetics, 35, 183-187.
30. Previc, F.H. (1998). The neuropsychology of 3-D space. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 123-164.
31. Schlicht, E.J., & Schrater, P.R. (2007). Effects of visual uncertainty on grasping movements. Experimental Brain Research, 182, 47-57.
32. Servos, P. (2000). Distance estimation in the visual and visuomotor systems. Experimental Brain Research, 130, 35-47.
33. Servos, P., & Goodale, M.A. (1994). Binocular vision and the on-line control of human prehension. Experimental Brain Research, 98, 119-127.
34. Servos, P., Goodale, M.A., & Jakobson, L.S. (1992). The role of binocular vision in prehension: A kinematic analysis. Vision Research, 32, 1513-1521.
35. Sivak, B., & MacKenzie, C.L. (1990). Integration of visual information and motor output in reaching and grasping: The contributions of peripheral and central vision. Neuropsychologia, 28, 1095-1116.
36. Trommershauser, J., Gepshtein, S., Maloney, L.T., Landy, M.S., & Banks, M.S. (2005). Optimal compensation for changes in task-relevant movement variability. The Journal of Neuroscience, 25, 7169-7178.
37. Watt, S.J., & Bradshaw, M.F. (2000). Binocular cues are important in controlling the grasp but not the reach in natural prehension movements. Neuropsychologia, 38, 1473-1481.
38. Westwood, D.A., Robertson, C., & Heath, M. (2005). Action control: Independent effects of memory and monocular viewing on reaching accuracy. Brain and Cognition, 57, 257-260.
39. Wing, A.M., Turton, A., & Fraser, C. (1986). Grasp size and accuracy of approach in reaching. Journal of Motor Behavior, 18, 245-260.
40. Woodworth, R.S. (1899). The accuracy of voluntary movement. Psychological Review, 3, 1-114.
41. Zelaznik, H., Hawkins, B., & Kisselburgh, L. (1983). Rapid visual feedback processing in single-aiming movements. Journal of Motor Behavior, 15, 217-236.