Comparison of grasping movements made by healthy subjects in a 3-dimensional immersive virtual versus physical environment

Acta Psychologica

Volumn 138, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 126-134

  Magdalon, Eliane C ^a   Michaelsen, Stella M ^b   Quevedo, Antonio A ^a   Levin, Mindy F ^c,d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMPINAS   (Brazil)

^b SANTA CATARINA STATE UNIVERSITY   (Brazil)

^c MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^d CENTRE FOR INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH IN REHABILITATION OF GREATER MONTREAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

Haptics; Kinematics; Motor process; Reach to grasp; Virtual reality; Visual perception

Indexed keywords

AGED; ARTICLE; BIOMECHANICS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER INTERFACE; ENVIRONMENT; FEMALE; HAND STRENGTH; HUMAN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; ORIENTATION; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE;

AGED; BIOMECHANICS; ENVIRONMENT; FEMALE; HAND STRENGTH; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; ORIENTATION; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; USER-COMPUTER INTERFACE;

EID: 80052873083     PISSN: 00016918     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.05.015     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Ada L., Canning C.G., Carr J.H., Kilbreath S.L., Shepherd R.B. Task-specific training of reaching and manipulation. Insights into the reach to grasp movement 1994, 239-265. Elsevier Science, North-Holland, The Netherlands. G.E. Stelmach, P.A. Vroon (Eds.).
2. Archambault P., Pigeon P., Feldman A.G., Levin M.F. Recruitment and sequencing of different degrees of freedom during pointing movements involving the trunk in healthy and hemiparetic subjects. Experimental Brain Research 1999, 126:55-67.
3. Armbruster C., Wolter M., Kuhlen T., Spijkers W., Fimm B. Depth perception in virtual reality: Distance estimations in peri- and extrapersonal space. Cyberpsychology & Behavior 2008, 11:9-15.
4. Barfield W., Hendrix C., Bjorneseth O., Kaczmarek K., Lotens W. Comparison of human sensory capabilities with technical specifications of virtual environment equipment. Presence 1995, 4:329-356.
5. Berthier N.E., Clifton R.K., Gullapalli V., McCall D.D., Robin D.J. Visual information and object size in the control of reaching. Journal of Motor Behavior 1996, 28:187-197.
6. Bingham G.P., Coats R., Mon-Williams M. Natural prehension in trials without haptic feedback but only when calibration is allowed. Neurophyschologia 2007, 45:288-294.
7. Bingham G.P., 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 1998, 24:145-168.
8. Bouguila L., Ishii M., Sato M. Effect of coupling haptics and stereopsis on depth perception in virtual environment. Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Haptic Human Computer Interaction 2000, 54-62. Glasgow, Scotland.
9. Brenner E., van Damme W.J.M. Perceived distance, shape and size. Vision Research 1999, 39:975-986.
10. Broeren J., Rydmark M., Sunnerhagen K.S. A kinematic analysis of a haptic handheld stylus in a virtual environment: A study in healthy subjects. Journal of Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation 2007, 4:1-13.
11. Cohen J. Statistics: A power primer. Psychology Bulletin 1992, 112:155-159.
12. Connolly J.D., Goodale M.A. The role of visual feedback of hand position in the control of manual prehension. Experimental Brain Research 1999, 125:281-286.
13. Creem-Regehr S.H., Willemsen P., Gooch A.A., Thompson W.B. The influence of restricted viewing conditions on egocentric distance perception: Implications for real and virtual environments. Perception 2005, 34:191-204.
14. Cuijpers R.H., Brenner E., Smeets J.B.J. Consistent haptic feedback is required but it is not enough for natural reaching to virtual cylinders. Human Movement Science 2008, 27:857-872.
15. Cutting J.E., Vishton P.M. Perceiving layout and knowing distances: The integration, relative potency, and contextual use of different information about depth. Perception of Space and Motion 1995, 69-117. Academic Press, San Diego. W. Epstein, S. Rogers (Eds.).
16. Haggard P., Wing A. Coordination of hand aperture with the spatial path of hand transport. Experimental Brain Research 1998, 118:286-292.
17. Haykin S. Adaptive filter theory 1991, Prentice-Hall.
18. Hibbard P.B., Bradshaw M.F. Reaching for virtual objects: Binocular disparity and the control of prehension. Experimental Brain Research 2003, 148:196-201.
19. Ifeachor E.C., Jervis B.W. Adaptive digital filters, in: digital signal processing - A practical approach 1993, 541-576. Addison-Wesley, Wokingham, England.
20. Jack D., Boian R., Merians A.S., Tremaine M., Burdea G.C., Adamovich S.V., et al. Virtual reality-enhanced stroke rehabilitation. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering 2001, 9:308-318.
21. Jeannerod M. Visuomotor channels: Their integration in goal-directed prehension. Human Movement Science 1999, 18:201-218.
22. Johansson R.S., Flanagan J.R. Coding and use of tactile signals from the fingertips in object manipulation tasks. Neuroscience 2009, 10:345-359.
23. Kim H.K., Rattner D.W., Srinivasan M.A. Virtual-reality-based laparoscopic surgical training: The role of simulation fidelity in haptic feedback. Computer Aided Surgery 2004, 9:227-234.
24. Knaut L., Subramanian S., McFadyen B.J., Bourbonnais D., Levin M.F. Kinematics of pointing movements made in a virtual versus a physical 3-dimensional environment in healthy and stroke subjects. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2009, 90:793-802.
25. Loftus A., Murphy S., McKenna I., Mon-Williams M. Reduced fields of view are neither necessary nor sufficient for distance underestimation but reduce precision and may cause calibration problems. Experimental Brain Research 2004, 158:328-335.
26. Loftus A., Servos P., Goodale M., Mendarozqueta N., Mon-Williams M. When two eyes are better than one in prehension: Monocular viewing and end-point variance. Experimental Brain Research 2004, 158:317-327.
27. Loomis J.M., Blascovich J.J., Beall A.C. Immersive virtual environment technology as a basic research tool in psychology. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 1999, 31:557-564.
28. Lourenço L.B., Azeff L., Sveistrup H., Levin M.F. Motivation and sense of presence in healthy subjects performing reaching tasks in physical and virtual environments. Proceedings of Virtual Rehabilitation 2008, 25-27. Vancouver, Canada.
29. Magdalon E.C., Michaelsen S.M., Quevado A.A.F., Levin M.F. Comparison of reaching and grasping kinematics in patients with hemiparesis and in healthy controls in virtual and physical environments. Proceedings of the Canadian Physiotherapy Association - Physio8 2008, 43. Canada, Ottawa.
30. Messing R., Durgin F.H. Distance perception and the visual horizon in head-mounted displays. ACM Transactions on Applied Perception 2005, 2:234-250.
31. Mon-Williams M., Bingham G.P. Ontological issues in distance perception: Cue use under full cue conditions cannot be inferred from use under controlled conditions. Perception & Psychophysics 2008, 70:551-561.
32. Mon-Williams M., Dijkerman H.C. The use of vergence information in the programming of prehension. Experimental Brain Research 1999, 128:578-582.
33. Portney L.G., Watkins M.P. Multivariate analysis. Foundations of clinical research: Applications to practice 2000, 587-620. Prentice Hall Health, Upper Saddle River, NJ. 2nd ed. L.G. Portney, M.P. Watkins (Eds.).
34. Rand M.K., Lemay M., Squire L.M., Shimansky Y.P., Stelmach G.E. Role of vision in aperture closure control during reach-to-grasp movements. Experimental Brain Research 2007, 181:447-460.
35. Rose F.D., Attree E.A., Brooks B.M., Parslow D.M., Penn P.R., Ambihaipahan N. Training in virtual environments: Transfer to real world tasks and equivalence to real task training. Ergonomics 2000, 43:494-511.
36. Saling M., Mescheriakov S., Molokanova E., Stelmach G.E., Berger M. Grip organization during wrist transport: The influence of an altered aperture. Experimental Brain Research 1996, 108:493-500.
37. Saposnik G., Levin M.F. Virtual reality in stroke rehabilitation: A metanalysis and implications for clinicians. Stroke 2011, 42:1380-1368.
38. Schettino L.F., Adamovich S.V., Poizner H. Effects of object shape and visual feedback on hand configuration during grasping. Experimental Brain Research 2003, 151:158-166.
39. Sivak B., MacKenzie C.L. Integration of visual information and motor output in reaching and grasping: The contributions of peripheral and central vision. Neuropsychologia 1990, 8:1095-1116.
40. Smeets J.B.J., Brenner E. A new view on grasping. Motor Control 1999, 3:237-271.
41. Stanney K. Realizing the full potential of virtual reality: Human factors issue that could stand in the way. Proceedings of IEEE Virtual Reality Annual International Symposium '95 1995, 28-32. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
42. Sveistrup H. Motor rehabilitation using virtual reality. Journal of Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation 2004, 10:1-10.
43. Tholey G., Desai J.P., Castellanos A.E. Force feedback plays a significant role in minimally invasive surgery. Annals of Surgery 2005, 241:102-109.
44. Timmann D., Stelmach G.E., Bloedel J.R. Grasping component alterations and limb transport. Experimental Brain Research 1996, 108:486-492.
45. Trombly C.A. Deficits of reaching in subjects with left hemiparesis: A pilot study. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy 1992, 46:887-897.
46. Viau A., Feldman A.G., McFadyen B.J., Levin M.F. Reaching in reality and virtual reality: A comparison of movement kinematics in healthy subjects and in adults with hemiparesis. Journal of Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation 2004, 1:1-11.
47. Watt S., Bradshaw M., Rushton S. Field of view affects reaching, not grasping. Experimental Brain Research 2000, 135:411-416.
48. Whitwell R.L., Lisa M., Lambert L.M., Goodale M.A. Grasping future events: Explicit knowledge of the availability of visual feedback fails to reliably influence prehension. Experimental Brain Research 2008, 188:603-611.
49. Yao H.-Y., Hayward V. A tactile enhancement instrument for minimally invasive surgery. Computer Aided Surgery 2005, 10:233-239.
50. Zahariev M.A., MacKenzie C.L. Grasping at 'thin air': Multimodal contact cues for reaching and grasping. Experimental Brain Research 2007, 180:69-84.