Search

Virtual reality (VR) is a powerful tool for researchers due to its potential to study dynamic human behavior in highly naturalistic environments while retaining full control over the presented stimuli. Due to advancements in consumer hardware, VR devices are now very affordable and have also started to include technologies such as eye tracking, further extending potential research applications. Rendering engines such as Unity, Unreal, or Vizard now enable researchers to easily create complex VR environments. However, implementing the experimental design can still pose a challenge, and these packages do not provide out-of-the-box support for trial-based behavioral experiments. Here, we present a Python toolbox, designed to facilitate common tasks when developing experiments using the Vizard VR platform. It includes functionality for common tasks like creating, randomizing, and presenting trial-based experimental designs or saving results to standardized file formats. Moreover, the toolbox greatly simplifies continuous recording of eye and body movements using any hardware supported in Vizard. We further implement and describe a simple goal-directed reaching task in VR and show sample data recorded from five volunteers. The toolbox, example code, and data are all available on GitHub under an open-source license. We hope that our toolbox can simplify VR experiment development, reduce code duplication, and aid reproducibility and open-science efforts.

International audience; Everyday movements are guided by objects’ positions relative to other items in the scene (allocentric information) as well as by objects’ positions relative to oneself (egocentric information). Allocentric information can guide movements to the remembered positions of hidden objects, but is it also used when the object remains visible? To stimulate the use of allocentric information, the position of the participant’s finger controlled the velocity of a cursor that they used to intercept moving targets, so there was no one-to-one mapping between egocentric positions of the hand and cursor. We evaluated whether participants relied on allocentric information by shifting all task-relevant items simultaneously leaving their allocentric relationships unchanged. If participants rely on allocentric information they should not respond to this perturbation. However, they did. They responded in accordance with their responses to each item shifting independently, supporting the idea that fast guidance of ongoing movements primarily relies on egocentric information.

In everyday life, our brain constantly builds spatial representations of the objects surrounding us. Many studies have investigated the nature of these spatial representations. It is well established that we use allocentric information in real-time and memory-guided movements. Most studies relied on small-scale and static experiments, leaving it unclear whether similar paradigms yield the same results on a larger scale using dynamic objects. We created a virtual reality task that required participants to encode the landing position of a virtual ball thrown by an avatar. Encoding differed in the nature of the task in that it was either purely perceptual (“view where the ball landed while standing still”—Experiment 1) or involved an action (“intercept the ball with the foot just before it lands”—Experiment 2). After encoding, participants were asked to place a real ball at the remembered landing position in the virtual scene. In some trials, we subtly shifted either the thrower or the midfield line on a soccer field to manipulate allocentric coding of the ball’s landing position. In both experiments, we were able to replicate classic findings from small-scale experiments and to generalize these results to different encoding tasks (perception vs. action) and response modes (reaching vs. walking-and-placing). Moreover, we found that participants preferably encoded the ball relative to the thrower when they had to intercept the ball, suggesting that the use of allocentric information is determined by the encoding task by enhancing task-relevant allocentric information. Our findings indicate that results previously obtained from memory-guided reaching are not restricted to small-scale movements, but generalize to whole-body movements in large-scale dynamic scenes.

When we perform a goal-directed movement, tactile sensitivity on the moving limb is reduced compared to during rest. This well established finding of movement-related tactile suppression is often investigated with psychophysical paradigms, using custom haptic actuators and highly constrained movement tasks. However, studying more naturalistic movement scenarios is becoming more accessible due to increased availability of affordable, off-the-shelf virtual reality (VR) hardware. Here, we present a first evaluation of consumer VR controllers (HTC Vive and Valve Index) for psychophysical testing using the built-in vibrotactile actuators. We show that participants’ tactile perceptual thresholds can generally be estimated through manipulation of controller vibration amplitude and frequency. When participants performed a goal-directed movement using the controller, vibrotactile perceptual thresholds increased compared to rest, in agreement with previous work and confirming the suitability of unmodified VR controllers for tactile suppression research. Our findings will facilitate investigations of tactile perception in dynamic virtual scenarios.

Adaptation to delays between actions and sensory feedback is important for efficiently interacting with our environment. Adaptation may rely on predictions of action-feedback pairing (motor-sensory component), or predictions of tactile-proprioceptive sensation from the action and sensory feedback of the action (inter-sensory component). Reliability of temporal information might differ across sensory feedback modalities (e.g. auditory or visual), influencing adaptation. Here, we investigated the role of motor-sensory and inter-sensory components on sensorimotor temporal recalibration for motor-auditory events (button press-tone) and motor-visual events (button press-Gabor patch). In the adaptation phase of the experiment, the motor action-feedback event pairs were presented with systematic temporal delays (0ms or 150ms). In the subsequent test phase, sensory feedback of the action were presented with variable delays. The participants were then asked whether this delay could be detected. To disentangle motor-sensory from inter-sensory component, we varied movements (active button press or passive depression of button) at adaptation and test. Our results suggest that motor-auditory recalibration is mainly driven by motor-sensory component, whereas motor-visual recalibration is mainly driven by inter-sensory component. Recalibration transferred from vision to audition, but not from audition to vision. These results indicate that motor-sensory and inter-sensory components of recalibration are weighted in a modality-dependent manner.

Somatosensory signals on a moving limb are typically suppressed. This results mainly from a predictive mechanism that generates an efference copy, and attenuates the predicted sensory consequences of that movement. Sensory feedback is, however, important for movement control. Behavioral studies show that the strength of suppression on a moving limb increases during somatosensory reaching, when reach-relevant somatosensory signals from the target limb can be additionally used to plan and guide the movement, leading to increased reliability of sensorimotor predictions. It is still unknown how this suppression is neurally implemented. In this fMRI study, participants reached to a somatosensory (static finger) or an external target (touch-screen) without vision. To probe suppression, participants detected brief vibrotactile stimuli on their moving finger shortly before reach onset. As expected, sensitivity to probes was reduced during reaching compared to baseline (resting), and this suppression was stronger during somatosensory than external reaching. BOLD activation associated with suppression was also modulated by the reach target: relative to baseline, processing of probes during somatosensory reaching led to distinct BOLD deactivations in somatosensory regions (postcentral gyrus, supramarginal gyrus-SMG) whereas probes during external reaching led to deactivations in the cerebellum. In line with the behavioral results, we also found additional deactivations during somatosensory relative to external reaching in the supplementary motor area, a region linked with sensorimotor prediction. Somatosensory reaching was also linked with increased functional connectivity between the left SMG and the right parietal operculum along with the right anterior insula. We show that somatosensory processing on a moving limb is reduced when additional reach-relevant feedback signals from the target limb contribute to the movement, by down-regulating activation in regions associated with predictive and feedback processing.

When presented with a set of possible reach targets, the movement trajectory can reveal aspects of the underlying competition for action selection. Current goals and physical salience can affect the trajectory of reaching movements to be attracted towards a distractor. Some studies demonstrated that stimuli associated with reward can also cause an attraction when reaching towards the reward stimulus was previously rewarded and the reward stimulus was physically salient. Here we demonstrate that a non-salient stimulus that signals the availability of reward attracts reaching movements even when moving towards it was never necessary nor rewarded. Moreover, the attraction by reward is particularly evident with short-latency movements. We conclude that neither physical salience nor reinforcing the movement towards a stimulus is necessary for reward to gain priority in the selection for action.

For any type of goal-directed hand and eye movement, it is important to determine the position of the target. Though many of these movements are directed toward visual targets, humans also perform movements to targets derived by somatosensory information only, such as proprioceptive (sensory signals about static limb position), kinesthetic (sensory signals about limb movement), and tactile signals (sensory signals about touch on skin). In this study we investigated how each of these types of somatosensory information influences goal-directed hand and eye movements. Furthermore, we examined whether somatosensory target information has a differential influence on isolated and combined eye-hand movements. Participants performed right-hand reaching, eye, or coordinated eye-hand movements to their left index or middle fingers in the absence of any visual information. We varied somatosensory target information by allowing proprioceptive, proprioceptive-kinesthetic, proprioceptive-tactile, or proprioceptive-kinesthetic-tactile information. Reach endpoint precision was poorest when the target was derived by proprioceptive information only but improved when two different types of input were available. In addition, reach endpoints in conditions with kinesthetic target information were systematically shifted toward the direction of movement, while static somatosensory information decayed over time and led to systematic undershoots of the reach target location. In contrast to the effect on reaches, somatosensory information did not influence gaze endpoint accuracy or precision. When performing coordinated eye-hand movements reach accuracy and gaze endpoint precision improved, suggesting a bidirectional use of efferent information. We conclude that somatosensory target information influence endpoint control differently for goal-directed hand and eye movements to unseen targets.NEW & NOTEWORTHY A systematic investigation of contributions of different somatosensory modalities (proprioception, kinesthesia, tactile) for goal-directed movements is missing. Here we demonstrate that while eye movements are not affected by different types of somatosensory information, reach precision improves when two different types of information are available. Moreover, reach accuracy and gaze precision to unseen somatosensory targets improve when performing coordinated eye-hand movements, suggesting bidirectional contributions of efferent information in reach and eye movement control.

When reaching to a visual target, humans need to transform the spatial target representation into the coordinate system of their moving arm. It has been shown that increased uncertainty in such coordinate transformations, for instance, when the head is rolled toward one shoulder, leads to higher movement variability and influence movement decisions. However, it is unknown whether the brain incorporates such added variability in planning and executing movements. We designed an obstacle avoidance task in which participants had to reach with or without visual feedback of the hand to a visual target while avoiding collisions with an obstacle. We varied coordinate transformation uncertainty by varying head roll (straight, 30° clockwise, and 30° counterclockwise). In agreement with previous studies, we observed that the reaching variability increased when the head was tilted. Indeed, head roll did not influence the number of collisions during reaching compared with the head-straight condition, but it did systematically change the obstacle avoidance behavior. Participants changed the preferred direction of passing the obstacle and increased the safety margins indicated by stronger movement curvature. These results suggest that the brain takes the added movement variability during head roll into account and compensates for it by adjusting the reaching trajectories. NEW & NOTEWORTHY We show that changing body geometry such as head roll results in compensatory reaching behaviors around obstacles. Specifically, we observed head roll causes changed preferred movement direction and increased trajectory curvature. As has been shown before, head roll increases movement variability due to stochastic coordinate transformations. Thus these results provide evidence that the brain must consider the added movement variability caused by coordinate transformations for accurate reach movements.

Previous research on the spatiotemporal dynamics of exogenous and endogenous attentional allocation during saccade preparation yielded conflicting results. We hypothesize that this can be explained by the cueing type used to orient attention in a perceptual task. We investigated the time-course of attentional allocation as a function of cueing type (central vs peripheral), spatial congruency of the cued perceptual and saccade task locations, and cue validity in a dual-task paradigm. Participants performed a visual discrimination task during saccade preparation. We found that central and peripheral cues differentially affected the time-course of attentional allocation depending on spatial congruency and cue validity. Peripheral cues quickly and transiently oriented attention to the cued location. In the congruent condition, attention was maintained by the pre-saccadic attention shift, but declined in the spatially incongruent condition. Central cues slowly oriented attention to the cued location. In the congruent condition, attention was boosted by the pre-saccadic attention shift compared to a slower increase in the spatially incongruent condition. The pre-saccadic attention shift - the automatic and obligatory shift of attention to the saccade target - observed in the invalid spatially incongruent condition was not differentially affected by the cueing type orienting attention away from it. Our results suggest that exogenous and endogenous attention is dynamically and flexibly allocated to cued locations during saccade preparation while pre-saccadic attentional resources are progressively shifted to the saccade target irrespective of the cueing type. We argue that attentional selection for perception represents a partially independent process in contrast to the pre-saccadic attention shift.

Simultaneous eye and hand movements are highly coordinated and tightly coupled. This raises the question whether the selection of eye and hand targets relies on a shared attentional mechanism or separate attentional systems. Previous studies have revealed conflicting results by reporting evidence for both a shared as well as separate systems. Movement properties such as movement curvature can provide novel insights into this question as they provide a sensitive measure for attentional allocation during target selection. In the current study, participants performed simultaneous eye and hand movements to the same or different visual target locations. We show that both saccade and reaching movements curve away from the other effector’s target location when they are simultaneously performed to spatially distinct locations. We argue that there is a shared attentional mechanism involved in selecting eye and hand targets that may be found on the level of effector-independent priority maps. NEW & NOTEWORTHY Movement properties such as movement curvature have been widely neglected as important sources of information in investigating whether the attentional systems underlying target selection for eye and hand movements are separate or shared. We convincingly show that movement curvature is influenced by the other effector’s target location in simultaneous eye and hand movements to spatially distinct locations. Our results provide evidence for shared attentional systems involved in the selection of saccade and reach targets.

Tactile stimuli on moving limbs are typically attenuated during reach planning and execution. This phenomenon has been related to internal forward models that predict the sensory consequences of a movement. Tactile suppression is considered to occur due to a match between the actual and predicted sensory consequences of a movement, which might free capacities to process novel or task-relevant sensory signals. Here, we examined whether and how tactile suppression depends on the relevance of somatosensory information for reaching. Participants reached with their left or right index finger to the unseen index finger of their other hand (body target) or an unseen pad on a screen (external target). In the body target condition, somatosensory signals from the static hand were available for localizing the reach target. Vibrotactile stimuli were presented on the moving index finger before or during reaching or in a separate no-movement baseline block, and participants indicated whether they detected a stimulus. As expected, detection thresholds before or during reaching were higher compared with baseline. Tactile suppression was also stronger for reaches to body targets than external targets, as reflected by higher detection thresholds and lower precision of detectability. Moreover, detection thresholds were higher when reaching with the left than with the right hand. Our results suggest that tactile suppression is modulated by position signals from the target limb that are required to reach successfully to the own body. Moreover, limb dominance seems to affect tactile suppression, presumably due to disparate uncertainty of feedback signals from the moving limb. NEW & NOTEWORTHY Tactile suppression on a moving limb has been suggested to release computational resources for processing other relevant sensory events. In the current study, we show that tactile sensitivity on the moving limb decreases more when reaching to body targets than external targets. This indicates that tactile perception can be modulated by allocating processing capacities to movement-relevant somatosensory information at the target location. Our results contribute to understanding tactile processing and predictive mechanisms in the brain.

The wide diversity of articles in this issue reveals an explosion of evidence for the mechanisms of prediction in the visual system. When thought of as visual priors, predictive mechanisms can be seen as tightly interwoven with incoming sensory data. Prediction is thus a fundamental and essential aspect not only of visual perception but of the actions that are guided by perception.

Exploring an object's shape by touch also renders information about its surface roughness. It has been suggested that shape and roughness are processed distinctly in the brain, a result based on comparing brain activation when exploring objects that differed in one of these features. To investigate the neural mechanisms of top‐down control on haptic perception of shape and roughness, we presented the same multidimensional objects but varied the relevance of each feature. Specifically, participants explored two objects that varied in shape (oblongness of cuboids) and surface roughness. They either had to compare the shape or the roughness in an alternative‐forced‐choice‐task. Moreover, we examined whether the activation strength of the identified brain regions as measured by functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) can predict the behavioral performance in the haptic discrimination task. We observed a widespread network of activation for shape and roughness perception comprising bilateral precentral and postcentral gyrus, cerebellum, and insula. Task‐relevance of the object's shape increased activation in the right supramarginal gyrus (SMG/BA 40) and the right precentral gyrus (PreCG/BA 44) suggesting that activation in these areas does not merely reflect stimulus‐driven processes, such as exploring shape, but also entails top‐down controlled processes driven by task‐relevance. Moreover, the strength of the SMG/PreCG activation predicted individual performance in the shape but not in the roughness discrimination task. No activation was found for the reversed contrast (roughness > shape). We conclude that macrogeometric properties, such as shape, can be modulated by top‐down mechanisms whereas roughness, a microgeometric feature, seems to be processed automatically.

Prediction allows humans and other animals to prepare for future interactions with their environment. This is important in our dynamically changing world that requires fast and accurate reactions to external events. Knowing when and where an event is likely to occur allows us to plan eye, hand, and body movements that are suitable for the circumstances. Predicting the sensory consequences of such movements helps to differentiate between self-produced and externally generated movements. In this review, we provide a selective overview of experimental studies on predictive mechanisms in human vision for action. We present classic paradigms and novel approaches investigating mechanisms that underlie the prediction of events guiding eye and hand movements.

Tactile suppression refers to the phenomenon that tactile signals are attenuated during movement planning and execution when presented on a moving limb compared to rest. It is usually explained in the context of the forward model of movement control that predicts the sensory consequences of an action. Recent research suggests that aging increases reliance on sensorimotor predictions resulting in stronger somatosensory suppression. However, the mechanisms contributing to this age effect remain to be clarified. We measured age-related differences in tactile suppression during reaching and investigated the modulation by cognitive processes. A total of 23 younger (18-27 years) and 26 older (59-78 years) adults participated in our study. We found robust suppression of tactile signals when executing reaching movements. Age group differences corroborated stronger suppression in old age. Cognitive task demands during reaching, although overall boosting suppression effects, did not modulate the age effect. Across age groups, stronger suppression was associated with lower individual executive capacities. There was no evidence that baseline sensitivity had a prominent impact on the magnitude of suppression. We conclude that aging alters the weighting of sensory signals and sensorimotor predictions during movement control. Our findings suggest that individual differences in tactile suppression are critically driven by executive functions.

Brain lesion and stimulation studies have suggested posterior parietal cortex and the medial intraparietal sulcus in particular as a crucial hub for online movement error corrections. However, causal evidence for this is still sparse. Indeed, lesion studies are potentially confounded by compensatory reorganization mechanisms while brain stimulation studies have produced heterogeneous results when employing transcranial magnetic stimulation. Here we designed a new complementary paradigm using fMRI-guided high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation (HD-tDCS) of the left medial intraparietal sulcus (mIPS) together with regression-based mediation analysis to re-examine the causal role of mIPS in online reach corrections to jumping targets. We obtained two independent measures of stimulation-induced changes in brain activity by modeling current flow in the brain and through EEG recordings before and after HD-tDCS stimulation. Third, to quantify behavioral effects of HD-tDCS we computed movement curvature as a measure of online correction. We demonstrate that both of our measurements of brain activity were consistent with a polarity-specific modulation of the online correction for targets jumping to the contralateral side of the stimulation. Importantly, using a mediation analysis of the relationship between stimulation current and movement curvature suggests that the induced current modifies brain activity, which then leads to the observed behavioral changes. This unique combination of methods and analysis thus provides complementary evidence for the crucial role of the posterior parietal cortex in online error correction, while at the same time setting a new methodological standard with respect to the causal influence of transcranial direct current stimulation.New & NoteworthyTranscranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is an interesting and potentially useful tool for asking causal scientific questions and design clinical treatments. With our unique combination of highly accurate fMRI guided stimulation, current forward modeling, EEG recordings before and after the stimulation and behavioral changes we could unravel the causal structure of tDCS. Our approach naturally deals with the variability of tDCS results, increasing its potential usefulness as a tool for research and clinical applications.

Previous studies have shown that beliefs about the human origin of a stimulus are capable of modulating the coupling of perception and action. Such beliefs can be based on top-down recognition of the identity of an actor or bottom-up observation of the behavior of the stimulus. Instructed human agency has been shown to lead to superior tracking performance of a moving dot as compared to instructed computer agency, especially when the dot followed a biological velocity profile and thus matched the predicted movement, whereas a violation of instructed human agency by a nonbiological dot motion impaired oculomotor tracking (Zwickel et al., 2012). This suggests that the instructed agency biases the selection of predictive models on the movement trajectory of the dot motion. The aim of the present fMRI study was to examine the neural correlates of top-down and bottom-up modulations of perception-action couplings by manipulating the instructed agency (human action vs. computer-generated action) and the observable behavior of the stimulus (biological vs. nonbiological velocity profile). To this end, participants performed an oculomotor tracking task in an MRI environment. Oculomotor tracking activated areas of the eye movement network. A right-hemisphere occipito-temporal cluster comprising the motion-sensitive area V5 showed a preference for the biological as compared to the nonbiological velocity profile. Importantly, a mismatch between instructed human agency and a nonbiological velocity profile primarily activated medial-frontal areas comprising the frontal pole, the paracingulate gyrus, and the anterior cingulate gyrus, as well as the cerebellum and the supplementary eye field as part of the eye movement network. This mismatch effect was specific to the instructed human agency and did not occur in conditions with a mismatch between instructed computer agency and a biological velocity profile. Our results support the hypothesis that humans activate a specific predictive model for biological movements based on their own motor expertise. A violation of this predictive model causes costs as the movement needs to be corrected in accordance with incoming (nonbiological) sensory information.

Saccades to somatosensory targets have longer latencies and are less accurate and precise than saccades to visual targets. Here we examined how different somatosensory information influences the planning and control of saccadic eye movements. Participants fixated a central cross and initiated a saccade as fast as possible in response to a tactile stimulus that was presented to either the index or the middle fingertip of their unseen left hand. In a static condition, the hand remained at a target location for the entire block of trials and the stimulus was presented at a fixed time after an auditory tone. Therefore, the target location was derived only from proprioceptive and tactile information. In a moving condition, the hand was first actively moved to the same target location and the stimulus was then presented immediately. Thus, in the moving condition additional kinesthetic information about the target location was available. We found shorter saccade latencies in the moving compared to the static condition, but no differences in accuracy or precision of saccadic endpoints. In a second experiment, we introduced variable delays after the auditory tone (static condition) or after the end of the hand movement (moving condition) in order to reduce the predictability of the moment of the stimulation and to allow more time to process the kinesthetic information. Again, we found shorter latencies in the moving compared to the static condition but no improvement in saccade accuracy or precision. In a third experiment, we showed that the shorter saccade latencies in the moving condition cannot be explained by the temporal proximity between the relevant event (auditory tone or end of hand movement) and the moment of the stimulation. Our findings suggest that kinesthetic information facilitates planning, but not control, of saccadic eye movements to proprioceptive-tactile targets.

Perceptual decisions are typically accompanied by a subjective sense of (un)certainty. There is robust evidence that observers have access to a reliable estimate of their own uncertainty and can judge the validity of their perceptual decisions. However, there is still a debate to what extent these meta-perceptual judgements underly a common mechanism that can monitor perceptual decisions across different sensory modalities. It has been suggested that perceptual confidence can be evaluated on an abstract scale that is not only task-independent but also modality-independent. We aimed to scrutinize these findings by measuring visual contrast and tactile vibration discrimination thresholds in a confidence forced-choice task. A total of 56 participants took part in our study. We determined thresholds for trials in which perceptual decisions were chosen as confident and for those that were declined as confident. Confidence comparisons were made between perceptual decisions either within the visual and tactile modality, respectively, or across both modalities. Furthermore, we assessed executive functions to explore a possible link between cognitive control and meta-perceptual capacities. We found that perceptual performance was a good predictor of confidence judgments and that the threshold modulation was similarly pronounced in both modalities. Most importantly, participants compared their perceptual confidence across visual and tactile decisions with the same precision as within the same modality. Cognitive control capacities were not related to meta-perceptual performance. In conclusion, our findings corroborate that perceptual uncertainty can be accessed on an abstract scale, allowing for confidence comparisons across sensory modalities.

Somatosensory perception is hampered on the moving limb during a goal-directed movement. This somatosensory suppression is mostly attributed to a forward model that predicts future states of the system based on the established motor command. Here, we examined whether and how this suppression is modulated by the predictability of object features important for controlling a grasping movement. Participants reached-to-grasp an object between thumb and index finger and then lifted it as straight as possible. Objects with symmetric or asymmetric mass distributions were presented either in a blocked or random manner, so that the object’s mass distribution could be anticipated or not. At the moment of object contact, a brief vibrotactile stimulus of varying intensities was presented on the dorsal part of the moving index finger. Participants had to report whether they detected the stimulus. When the object’s mass distribution was predictable, contact points with the object were modulated to the object’s centre of mass. This modulation contributed to a minimized resultant object roll during lifting. When the object’s mass distribution was unpredictable, participants chose a default grasping configuration, resulting in greater object roll for asymmetric mass distributions. Somatosensory perception was hampered when grasping both types of objects compared to baseline (no-movement). Importantly, somatosensory suppression was stronger when participants could predict the object’s mass distribution. We suggest that the strength of somatosensory suppression depends on the predictability of movement-relevant object features.

Due to limitations in perceptual processing, information relevant to momentary task goals is selected from the vast amount of available sensory information by top-down mechanisms (e.g. attention) that can increase perceptual performance. We investigated how covert attention affects perception of 3D objects in active touch. In our experiment, participants simultaneously explored the shape and roughness of two objects in sequence, and were told afterwards to compare the two objects with regard to one of the two features. To direct the focus of covert attention to the different features we manipulated the expectation of a shape or roughness judgment by varying the frequency of trials for each task (20%, 50%, 80%), then we measured discrimination thresholds. We found higher discrimination thresholds for both shape and roughness perception when the task was unexpected, compared to the conditions in which the task was expected (or both tasks were expected equally). Our results suggest that active touch perception is modulated by expectations about the task. This implies that despite fundamental differences, active and passive touch are affected by feature selective covert attention in a similar way.

Sensitivity to touch is reduced during movement; this tactile suppression is likely the result of a mechanism that suppresses self-generated movement consequences. We sought to determine whether tactile suppression is modulated by naturally evoked changes in movement speed driven by task precision demands (Exp.1), and by changes in predicted movement consequences (Exp.2). We measured suppression by comparing detection thresholds for a vibration applied to the finger during reach and at rest. In Experiment 1 we varied reach target size to create a speed-accuracy tradeoff, where participants decelerated more to smaller targets to accurately hit them. We theorized that the reduction in late-reach speed associated with higher precision demands might lead to a reduction in late-reach suppression, consistent with the literature showing a positive relationship between speed and suppression. Contrary to our hypothesis, we found suppression increased towards the end of the reach in all conditions, despite a significant decrease in reaching speed. We postulated this might be a de-emphasizing of the predicted tactile feedback associated with tapping the target. To test this, in Experiment 2 we paired a vibration consequence with a target of a certain colour. We found an increase in late-reach suppression for this target compared to a target of another colour with no associated consequence. Our results indicate that tactile suppression is temporally sensitive and increases as predicted consequences become more likely. We propose the positive correlation between movement speed and suppression previously reported may be driven by the predicted somatosensory consequences associated with increased movement speed.

People have often been reported to look near their index finger's contact point when grasping. They have only been reported to look near the thumb's contact point when grasping an opaque object at eye height with a horizontal grip-thus when the region near the index finger's contact point is occluded. To examine to what extent being able to see the digits' final trajectories influences where people look, we compared gaze when reaching to grasp a glass of water or milk that was placed at eye or hip height. Participants grasped the glass and poured its contents into another glass on their left. Surprisingly, most participants looked nearer to their thumb's contact point. To examine whether this was because gaze was biased toward the position of the subsequent action, which was to the left, we asked participants in a second experiment to grasp a glass and either place it or pour its contents into another glass either to their left or right. Most participants' gaze was biased to some extent toward the position of the next action, but gaze was not influenced consistently across participants. Gaze was also not influenced consistently across the experiments for individual participants-even for those who participated in both experiments. We conclude that gaze is not simply determined by the identity of the digit or by details of the contact points, such as their visibility, but that gaze is just as sensitive to other factors, such as where one will manipulate the object after grasping.

In this study, we investigated the influence of gaze and prior knowledge about the reach target on the use of allocentric information for memory-guided reaching. Participants viewed a breakfast scene with five objects in the background and six objects on the table. Table objects served as potential reach targets. Participants first encoded the scene and, after a short delay, a test scene was presented with one table object missing and one, three, or five table objects horizontally shifted in the same direction. Participants performed a memory-guided reaching movement toward the position of the missing object on a blank screen. In order to examine the influence of gaze, participants either freely moved their gaze (free-view) or kept gaze at a fixation point (fixation) throughout the trial. The effect of prior knowledge was investigated by informing participants about the reach target either before (preview) or after (nonpreview) scene encoding. Our results demonstrate that humans use allocentric information for reaching even if a stable retinal reference is available. However, allocentric coding of reach targets is stronger when gaze is free and prior knowledge about the reach target is missing.

Saccade curvature represents a sensitive measure of oculomotor inhibition with saccades curving away from covertly attended locations. Here we investigated whether and how saccade curvature depends on movement preparation time when a perceptual task is performed during or before saccade preparation. Participants performed a dual-task including a visual discrimination task at a cued location and a saccade task to the same location (congruent) or to a different location (incongruent). Additionally, we varied saccade preparation time (time between saccade cue and Go-signal) and the occurrence of the discrimination task (during saccade preparation=simultaneous vs. before saccade preparation=sequential). We found deteriorated perceptual performance in incongruent trials during simultaneous task performance while perceptual performance was unaffected during sequential task performance. Saccade accuracy and precision were deteriorated in incongruent trials during simultaneous and, to a lesser extent, also during sequential task performance. Saccades consistently curved away from covertly attended non-saccade locations. Saccade curvature was unaffected by movement preparation time during simultaneous task performance but decreased and finally vanished with increasing movement preparation time during sequential task performance. Our results indicate that the competing saccade plan to the covertly attended non-saccade location is maintained during simultaneous task performance until the perceptual task is solved while in the sequential condition, in which the discrimination task is solved prior to the saccade task, oculomotor inhibition decays gradually with movement preparation time.