Weber's law in tactile grasping and manual estimation: Feedback-dependent evidence for functionally distinct processing streams

Brain and Cognition

Volumn 86, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 32-41

  Davarpanah Jazi, Shirin ^a   Heath, Matthew ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Allocentric; Egocentric; Grasping; Perception; Tactile; Weber's law

Indexed keywords

ALLOCENTRIC; EGOCENTRIC; GRASPING; PERCEPTION; TACTILE; WEBER'S LAW;

ADULT; DIFFERENTIAL THRESHOLD; FEEDBACK, SENSORY; FEMALE; HAND STRENGTH; HUMANS; MALE; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; PSYCHOPHYSICS; SPACE PERCEPTION; TOUCH PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84894085475     PISSN: 02782626     EISSN: 10902147     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.bandc.2014.01.014     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Albrecht A.R., Scholl B.J. Perceptually averaging in a continuous visual world extracting statistical summary representations over time. Psychological Science 2010, 21:560-567.
2. Albrecht A.R., Scholl B.J., Chun M.M. Perceptual averaging by eye and ear: Computing summary statistics from multimodal stimuli. Attention Perception and Psychophysics 2012, 74:810-815.
3. Anema H.A., van Zandvoort M.J., de Haan E.H., Kappelle L.J., de Kort P.L., Jansen B.P., et al. A double dissociation between somatosensory processing for perception and action. Neuropsychologia 2009, 47:1615-1620.
4. Anema H.A., Wolswijk V.W., Ruis C., Dijkerman H.C. Grasping Weber's illusion: The effect of receptor density differences on grasping and matching. Cognitive Neuropsychology 2008, 25:951-967.
5. Ariely D. Seeing sets: Representation by statistical properties. Psychological Science 2001, 12:157-162.
6. Bingham G., Coats R., Mon-Williams M. Natural prehension in trials without haptic feedback but only when calibration is allowed. Neuropsychologia 2007, 45:288-294.
7. Brainard D.H. The psychophysics toolbox. Spatial Vision 1997, 10:433-436.
8. Chong S.C., Treisman A. Statistical processing: Computing the average size in perceptual groups. Vision Research 2005, 45:891-900.
9. Dijkerman H.C., de Haan E.H. Somatosensory processes subserving perception and action. Behavioral and Brain Science 2007, 30:189-201. discussion, 201-39.
10. Drewing K., Ernst M.O. Integration of force and position cues for shape perception through active touch. Brain Research 2006, 1078:92-100.
11. Ernst M.O., Bülthoff H.H. Merging the senses into a robust percept. Trends in Cognitive Science 2004, 8:162-169.
12. Flanagan J.R., Vetter P., Johansson R.S., Wolpert D.M. Prediction precedes control in motor learning. Current Biology 2003, 13:146-150.
13. Ganel T., Chajut E., Algom D. Visual coding for action violates fundamental psychophysical principles. Current Biology 2008, 18:R599-R601.
14. Goudge M.E. A qualitative and quantitative study of Weber's illusion. American Journal of Psychology 1918, 29:81-119.
15. Heath M., Holmes S.A., Mulla A., Binsted G. Grasping time does not influence the early adherence of aperture shaping to Weber's law. Frontier Human Neuroscience 2012, 6.
16. Heath M., Mulla A., Holmes S.A., Smuskowitz L.R. The visual coding of grip aperture shows an early but not late adherence to Weber's law. Neuroscience Letters 2011, 490:200-204.
17. Holmes S.A., Heath M. Goal-directed grasping: The dimensional properties of an object influence the nature of the visual information mediating aperture shaping. Brain and Cognition 2013, 82:18-24.
18. Holmes S.A., Lohmus J., McKinnon S., Mulla A., Heath M. Distinct visual cues mediate aperture shaping for grasping and pantomime-grasping tasks. Journal of Motor Behavior 2013, 45:431-439.
19. Holmes S., Marriott K., Mackenzie A., Sin M., Heath M. Distinct visual metrics support the late stages of aperture shaping for 2D and 3D target objects. Journal of Vision 2012, 12:1096-1097.
20. Holmes S.A., Mulla A., Binsted G., Heath M. Visually and memory-guided grasping: Aperture shaping exhibits a time-dependent scaling to Weber's law. Vision Research 2011, 51:1941-1948.
21. Hu Y., Goodale M.A. Grasping after a delay shifts size-scaling from absolute to relative metrics. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2000, 12:856-868.
22. Jakobson L.S., Goodale M.A. Factors affecting higher-order movement planning: A kinematic analysis of human prehension. Experimental Brain Research 1991, 86:199-208.
23. Lederman S.J., Klatzky R.L. Haptic perception: A tutorial. Attention Perceptive and Psychophysics 2009, 71:1439-1459.
24. Marks L.E., Algom D. Psychophysical scaling. Measurement, judgment, and decision making 1998, 81-178. Academic Press, San Diego. M.H. Birnbaum (Ed.).
25. Milner A.D., Ganel T., Goodale M.A. Does grasping in patient D.F. depend on vision. Trends in Cognitive Science 2012, 16:256-257. discussion, 258-9.
26. Paillard J., Michel F., Stelmach G. Localization without content. A tactile analogue of 'blind sight'. Archives of Neurology 1983, 40:548-551.
27. Pedhazur E.J. Multiple regression in behavioral research: Explanation and prediction 1997, Harcourt Brace College Publishers, Orlando.
28. Pepper R.L., Herman L.M. Decay and interference effects in the short-term retention of a discrete motor act. Journal of Experimental Psychology 1970, 83:1-18.
29. Redding G.M., Wallace B. First-trial adaptation to prism exposure. Journal of Motor Behavior 2003, 35:229-245.
30. Saig A., Gordon G., Assa E., Arieli A., Ahissar E. Motor-sensory confluence in tactile perception. Journal of Neuroscience 2012, 32:14022-14032.
31. Schenk T. No dissociation between perception and action in patient DF when haptic feedback is withdrawn. Journal of Neuroscience 2012, 32:2013-2017.
32. Smeets J.B., Brenner E. A new view on grasping. Motor Control 1999, 3:237-271.
33. Smeets J.B., Brenner E. Grasping Weber's law. Current Biology 2008, 18:R1089-R1090.
34. Spencer J. Estimating averages. Ergonomics 1961, 4:317-328.
35. Taylor-Clarke M., Jacobsen P., Haggard P. Keeping the world a constant size: Object constancy in human touch. Nature Neuroscience 2004, 7:219-220.
36. Wei K., Stevenson I.H., Körding K.P. The uncertainty associated with visual flow fields and their influence on postural sway: Weber's law suffices to explain the nonlinearity of vection. Journal of Vision 2010, 10.
37. Westwood D.A., Heath M., Roy E.A. The effect of a pictorial illusion on closed-loop and open-loop prehension. Experimental Brain Research 2000, 134:456-463.
38. Whitwell R.L., Buckingham G. Reframing the action and perception dissociation in DF: Haptics matters, but how?. Journal of Neurophysiology 2013, 109:621-624.