Abstract

When making goal-directed movements toward a target, our hand deviates from its path in the direction of sudden background motion. We propose that this manual following response arises because ongoing movements are constantly guided toward the planned movement endpoint. Such guidance is needed to compensate for modest, unexpected self-motion. Our proposal is that the compensation for such self-motion does not involve a sophisticated analysis of the global optic flow. Instead, we propose that any motion in the vicinity of the planned endpoint is attributed to the endpoint's egocentric position having shifted in the direction of the motion. The ongoing movement is then stabilized relative to the shifted endpoint. In six experiments, we investigate what aspects of motion determine this shift of planned endpoint. We asked participants to intercept a moving target when it reached a certain area. During the target's motion, background structures briefly moved either leftward or rightward. Participants’ hands responded to background motion even when each background structure was only briefly visible or when the vast majority of background structures remained static. The response was not restricted to motion along the target's path but was most sensitive to motion close to where the target was to be hit, both in the visual field and in depth. In this way, a movement stabilization mechanism provides a comprehensive explanation of many aspects of the manual following response.

Highlights

  • To successfully execute goal-directed movements in a constantly changing environment, we continuously use and integrate numerous sources of visual information (e.g., Brenner, Smeets, & de Lussanet, 1998; van der Kamp, Savelsbergh, & Smeets, 1997; de la Malla and López-Moliner, 2015; Brenner & Smeets, 2018)

  • Even when the background consisted of limited lifetime dots and was clearly not stable, the hand was still pulled in the direction of background motion

  • Despite the fact that twice as many dots remained static than moved, there was a clear manual following response (MFR). This suggests that static dots are ignored and any abrupt motion is sufficient to drive the MFR, rather than the MFR being the consequence of estimating self-motion based on the overall motion signal present in the display (Figure 3)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

To successfully execute goal-directed movements in a constantly changing environment, we continuously use and integrate numerous sources of visual information (e.g., Brenner, Smeets, & de Lussanet, 1998; van der Kamp, Savelsbergh, & Smeets, 1997; de la Malla and López-Moliner, 2015; Brenner & Smeets, 2018). We respond to abrupt background motion, with our hand deviating from its path in the direction of such motion from approximately 150 ms after its onset (Brenner & Smeets, 1997; Saijo, Murakami, Nishida, & Gomi, 2005; Gomi, Abekawa, & Nishida, 2006) This manual following response (MFR) is very robust: It does not depend on the observer’s actual postural stability (de Dieuleveult, Brouwer, Siemonsma, Van Erp, & Brenner, 2018) and is found in movements toward both visible objects (e.g., Mohrmann-Lendla & Fleischer, 1991; Brenner & Smeets, 1997) and memorized positions (e.g., Whitney, Westwood, & Goodale, 2003; Saijo et al, 2005; Gomi, Abekawa, & Shimojo, 2013). One mechanism that could underlie the estimation of self-motion is an analysis of the instantaneous global optic flow: the structured patterns of retinal motion that result when an observer moves

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call