Abstract
Gibson formulated an approach to goal-directed behavior using prospective information in the context of visually guided locomotion and manual behavior. The former was Gibson's paradigm case, but it is the rapidity of targeted reaching that has provided the special challenge for stable control. Recent treatments of visually guided reaching assume that internal forward models are required to generate stable behavior given delays caused by neural transmission times. Internal models are representations of the sort eschewed by Gibson in favor of prospective information. Reaching is usually described as guided using relative distances of hand and target, but prospective information is usually temporal rather than spatial. We describe proportional rate control models that incorporate time dimensioned prospective information and show they remain stable in the face of delays. The use of time-dimensioned prospective information removes the need for internal models for stable behavior despite neural transmission delays and allows Gibson's approach to prevail.
Highlights
Visually Guided Reaching and Proportional Rate ControlMany studies had applied monocular Tau to control manual action in interception tasks (e.g., Bingham, 1995; Bootsma and Oudejans, 1992), that is, reaching-to-grasp, catching, or hitting balls in table tennis. Anderson and Bingham (2010, 2011) pointed out that monocular Tau is only relevant to approach and contact with the eye, not the hand (see Wann et al, 1993)
Another example where Gibson addressed the problem of anticipation or prediction of future states was the information for imminent collision or looming (EAVP; Gibson, 1979, p. 231). This was image expansion at an exponentially increasing rate. It had been developed by Hoyle (1957) and Lee (1974, 1976, 1980), the optical variable Tau did not appear in ecological approach to visual perception (EAVP) as specifying Time-to-Collision under conditions of a constant velocity of approach
Anderson and Bingham (2010, 2011) pointed out that monocular Tau is only relevant to approach and contact with the eye, not the hand. They formulated an approach to the visual control of reaching-to-grasp that was in contrast to both the constant Tau-dot strategy and Fajen’s affordance-based control, this new formulation satisfied the need to respect the relevant affordances while generating stable trajectories in conformance with Gibson’s strategy
Summary
Many studies had applied monocular Tau to control manual action in interception tasks (e.g., Bingham, 1995; Bootsma and Oudejans, 1992), that is, reaching-to-grasp, catching, or hitting balls in table tennis. Anderson and Bingham (2010, 2011) pointed out that monocular Tau is only relevant to approach and contact with the eye, not the hand (see Wann et al, 1993). Many studies had applied monocular Tau to control manual action in interception tasks (e.g., Bingham, 1995; Bootsma and Oudejans, 1992), that is, reaching-to-grasp, catching, or hitting balls in table tennis. Anderson and Bingham (2010, 2011) pointed out that monocular Tau is only relevant to approach and contact with the eye, not the hand (see Wann et al, 1993) They formulated an approach to the visual control of reaching-to-grasp that was in contrast to both the constant Tau-dot strategy and Fajen’s affordance-based control, this new formulation satisfied the need to respect the relevant affordances while generating stable trajectories in conformance with Gibson’s strategy. This approach entailed the introduction of new Tau-type visual information variables together with a new type of control dynamic, proportional rate control
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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
