Search

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.

When interacting with the environment, our manual actions are often preceded by an eye movement. This suggests that the processes underlying target selection in hand and eye movements may be coupled. It is known that when a distractor is presented close to a target, the endpoint of an eye movement will be biased towards the distractor. The size of this so-called global effect decreases when more viewing time is available. Here we investigate whether a similar effect is also present in hand movements. If the processes underlying target selection for hand and eye movements are indeed coupled, a similar bias should be present in hand movements as well. To test this, we adopted a classic global effect paradigm but applied it to goal-directed hand movements. We show that the endpoints of hand movements are unbiased for all but one participant, irrespective of the viewing time. These results suggest that the processes underlying target selection for hand movements operate independently from those for eye movements., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

When learning a movement based on binary success information, one is more variable following failure than following success. Theoretically, the additional variability post-failure might reflect exploration of possibilities to obtain success. When average behavior is changing (as in learning), variability can be estimated from differences between subsequent movements. Can one estimate exploration reliably from such trial-to-trial changes when studying reward-based motor learning? To answer this question, we tried to reconstruct the exploration underlying learning as described by four existing reward-based motor learning models. We simulated learning for various learner and task characteristics. If we simply determined the additional change post-failure, estimates of exploration were sensitive to learner and task characteristics. We identified two pitfalls in quantifying exploration based on trial-to-trial changes. Firstly, performance-dependent feedback can cause correlated samples of motor noise and exploration on successful trials, which biases exploration estimates. Secondly, the trial relative to which trial-to-trial change is calculated may also contain exploration, which causes underestimation. As a solution, we developed the additional trial-to-trial change (ATTC) method. By moving the reference trial one trial back and subtracting trial-to-trial changes following specific sequences of trial outcomes, exploration can be estimated reliably for the three models that explore based on the outcome of only the previous trial. Since ATTC estimates are based on a selection of trial sequences, this method requires many trials. In conclusion, if exploration is a binary function of previous trial outcome, the ATTC method allows for a model-free quantification of exploration., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Does recognizing the transformations that gave rise to an object's retinal image contribute to early object recognition? It might, because finding a partially occluded object among similar objects that are not occluded is more difficult than finding an object that has the same retinal image shape without evident occlusion. If this is because the occlusion is recognized as such, we might see something similar for other transformations. We confirmed that it is difficult to find a cookie with a section missing when this was the result of occlusion. It is not more difficult to find a cookie from which a piece has been bitten off than to find one that was baked in a similar shape. On the contrary, the bite marks help detect the bitten cookie. Thus, biting off a part of a cookie has very different effects on visual search than occluding part of it. These findings do not support the idea that observers rapidly and automatically compensate for the ways in which objects' shapes are transformed to give rise to the objects' retinal images. They are easy to explain in terms of detecting characteristic features in the retinal image that such transformations may hide or create.

Binary reward feedback on movement success is sufficient for learning some simple sensorimotor mappings in a reaching task, but not for some other tasks in which multiple kinematic factors contribute to performance. The critical condition for learning in more complex tasks remains unclear. Here, we investigate whether reward-based motor learning is possible in a multi-dimensional trajectory matching task and whether simplifying the task by providing feedback on one factor at a time ('factorized feedback') can improve learning. In two experiments, participants performed a trajectory matching task in which learning was measured as a reduction in the error. In Experiment 1, participants matched a straight trajectory slanted in depth. We factorized the task by providing feedback on the slant error, the length error, or on their composite. In Experiment 2, participants matched a curved trajectory, also slanted in depth. In this experiment, we factorized the feedback by providing feedback on the slant error, the curvature error, or on the integral difference between the matched and target trajectory. In Experiment 1, there was anecdotal evidence that participants learnt the multidimensional task. Factorization did not improve learning. In Experiment 2, there was anecdotal evidence the multidimensional task could not be learnt. We conclude that, within a complexity range, multiple kinematic factors can be learnt in parallel.

Purpose: Human sensory and motor systems deteriorate with age. When walking, older adults may therefore find it more difficult to adjust their steps to new visual information, especially considering that such adjustments require control of balance as well as of foot trajectory. Our study investigates the effects of ageing on lower limb responses to unpredictable target shifts., Methods: Participants walked on a treadmill with projected stepping targets that occasionally shifted in the medial or lateral direction. The shifts occurred at a random moment during the early half of the swing phase of either leg. Kinematic, kinetic and muscle activity data were collected., Results: Older adults responded later and corrected for a smaller proportion of the shift than young adults. The order in which muscle activation changed was similar in both groups, with responses of gluteus medius and semitendinosus from about 120 to 140 ms after the shift. Most muscles responded slightly later to lateral target shifts in the older adults than in the young adults, but this difference was not observed for medial target shifts. Ageing delayed the behavioural responses more than it did the electromyographic (EMG) responses., Conclusions: Our study suggests that older adults can adjust their walking to small target shifts during the swing phase, but not as well as young adults. Furthermore, muscle strength probably plays a substantial role in the changes in online adjustments during ageing.

People often look at objects that they are holding in their hands. It is therefore reasonable to expect them to be able to direct their gaze precisely with respect to their fingers. However, we know that people make reproducible idiosyncratic errors of up to a few centimetres when they try to align a visible cursor to their own finger hidden below a surface. To find out whether they also make idiosyncratic errors when they try to look at their finger, we asked participants to hold their finger in front of their head in the dark, and look at it. Participants made idiosyncratic errors of a similar magnitude to those previously found when matching a visual cursor to their hidden finger. This shows that proprioceptive position sense of finger and gaze are not aligned, suggesting that people rely on vision to guide their gaze to their own finger.

When a distractor appears in close proximity to a saccade target, the saccadic end point is biased towards the distractor. This so-called global effect reduces with the latency of the saccade if the saccade is visually guided. We recently reported that the global effect does not reduce with the latency of a double-step memory-guided saccade. The aim of this study was to investigate why the global effect in memory-guided saccades does not show the typically observed reduction with saccadic latency. One possibility is that reduction of the global effect requires continuous access to visual information about target and distractor locations, which is lacking in the case of a memory-guided saccade. Alternatively, participants may be inclined to routinely preprogram a memory-guided saccade at the moment the visual information disappears, with the result that a memory-guided saccade is typically programmed on the basis of an earlier representation than necessary. To distinguish between these alternatives, two potential targets were presented, and participants were asked to make a saccade to one of them after a delay. In one condition, the target identity was precued, allowing preprogramming of the saccade, while in another condition, it was revealed by a retro cue after the delay. The global effect remained present in both conditions. Increasing visual exposure of target and distractor led to a reduction of the global effect, irrespective of whether participants could preprogram a saccade or not. The results suggest that continuous access to visual information is required in order to eliminate the global effect.

Key Points: Goal-directed arm movements can be adjusted at short latency to target shifts. We tested whether similar adjustments are present during walking on a treadmill with shifting stepping targets. Participants responded at short latency with an adequate gain to small shifts of the stepping targets. Movements of the feet during walking are controlled in a similar way to goal-directed arm movements if balance is not violated., Abstract: It is well-known that goal-directed hand movements can be adjusted to small changes in target location with a latency of about 100 ms. We tested whether people make similar fast adjustments when a target location for foot placement changes slightly as they walk over a flat surface. Participants walked at 3 km/h on a treadmill on which stepping stones were projected. The stones were 50 cm apart in the walking direction. Every 5-8 steps, a stepping stone was unexpectedly displaced by 2.5 cm in the medio-lateral direction. The displacement took place during the first half of the swing phase. We found fast adjustments of the foot trajectory, with a latency of about 155 ms, initiated by changes in muscle activation 123 ms after the perturbation. The responses corrected for about 80% of the perturbation. We conclude that goal-directed movements of the foot are controlled in a similar way to those of the hand, thus also giving very fast adjustments., (© 2020 The Authors. The Journal of Physiology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of The Physiological Society.)

Exploration in reward-based motor learning is observable in experimental data as increased variability. In order to quantify exploration, we compare three methods for estimating other sources of variability: sensorimotor noise. We use a task in which participants could receive stochastic binary reward feedback following a target-directed weight shift. Participants first performed six baseline blocks without feedback, and next twenty blocks alternating with and without feedback. Variability was assessed based on trial-to-trial changes in movement endpoint. We estimated sensorimotor noise by the median squared trial-to-trial change in movement endpoint for trials in which no exploration is expected. We identified three types of such trials: trials in baseline blocks, trials in the blocks without feedback, and rewarded trials in the blocks with feedback. We estimated exploration by the median squared trial-to-trial change following non-rewarded trials minus sensorimotor noise. As expected, variability was larger following non-rewarded trials than following rewarded trials. This indicates that our reward-based weight-shifting task successfully induced exploration. Most importantly, our three estimates of sensorimotor noise differed: the estimate based on rewarded trials was significantly lower than the estimates based on the two types of trials without feedback. Consequently, the estimates of exploration also differed. We conclude that the quantification of exploration depends critically on the type of trials used to estimate sensorimotor noise. We recommend the use of variability following rewarded trials., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

There is extensive literature debating whether perceived size is used to guide grasping. A possible reason for not using judged size is that using judged positions might lead to more precise movements. As this argument does not hold for small objects and all studies showing an effect of the Ebbinghaus illusion on grasping used small objects, we hypothesized that size information is used for small objects but not for large ones. Using a modified diagonal illusion, we obtained an effect of about 10% on perceptual judgements, without an effect on grasping, irrespective of object size. We therefore reject our precision hypothesis. We discuss the results in the framework of grasping as moving digits to positions on an object. We conclude that the reported disagreement on the effect of illusions is because the Ebbinghaus illusion not only affects size, but-unlike most size illusions-also affects perceived positions.

Many experiments aim to investigate the time-course of cognitive processes while measuring a single response per trial. A common first step in the analysis of such data is to divide them into a limited number of bins. As we demonstrate here, the way one chooses these bins can considerably influence the resulting time-course. As a solution to this problem, we here present the smoothing method for analysis of response time-course (SMART)-a complete package for reconstructing the time-course from one-sample-per-trial data and performing statistical analysis. After smoothing the data, the SMART weights the data based on the effective number of data points per participant. A cluster-based permutation test then determines at which moments the responses differ from a baseline or between two conditions. We show here that, in contrast to contemporary binning methods, the chosen temporal resolution has a negligible effect on the SMART reconstructed time-course. To facilitate its use, the SMART method, accompanied by a tutorial, is available as an open-source package.

It is tempting to describe human reach-to-grasp movements in terms of two, more or less independent visuomotor channels, one relating hand transport to the object's location and the other relating grip aperture to the object's size. Our review of experimental work questions this framework for reasons that go beyond noting the dependence between the two channels. Both the lack of effect of size illusions on grip aperture and the finding that the variability in grip aperture does not depend on the object's size indicate that size information is not used to control grip aperture. An alternative is to describe grip formation as emerging from controlling the movements of the digits in space. Each digit's trajectory when grasping an object is remarkably similar to its trajectory when moving to tap the same position on its own. The similarity is also evident in the fast responses when the object is displaced. This review develops a new description of the speed-accuracy trade-off for multiple effectors that is applied to grasping. The most direct support for the digit-in-space framework is that prism-induced adaptation of each digit's tapping movements transfers to that digit's movements when grasping, leading to changes in grip aperture for adaptation in opposite directions for the two digits. We conclude that although grip aperture and hand transport are convenient variables to describe grasping, treating grasping as movements of the digits in space is a more suitable basis for understanding the neural control of grasping.

If the surrounding of a visual target unexpectedly starts to move during a fast goal-directed hand movement, the hand reflexively moves along with it. This is known as the 'manual following response'. One explanation for this response is that it is a compensation for inferred self-motion in space. Previous studies have shown that background motion gives rise to both postural responses and deviations in goal-directed hand movements. To evaluate whether compensation for inferred self-motion is responsible for the manual responses we examined whether galvanic stimulation of the vestibular system would give rise to similar deviations in hand movements. Standing participants tried to quickly tap on targets that were presented on a horizontal screen. Participants could infer self-motion on some of the trials, either from galvanic vestibular stimulation or from background motion. Both perturbations took place during the hand movement. It took both the head and hand about 45 ms longer to respond to background motion than to respond to galvanic stimulation. The head responded in a similar manner to both types of perturbations. The hand responded about as expected to galvanic stimulation, but much more vigorously to background motion. Thus, the manual response to background motion is probably not a direct consequence of trying to compensate for inferred self-motion. Perhaps the manual following response is a consequence of an error in binding motion information to objects.

Does the predictability of a target's movement and of the interception location influence how the target is intercepted? In a first experiment, we manipulated the predictability of the interception location. A target moved along a haphazardly curved path, and subjects attempted to tap on it when it entered a hitting zone. The hitting zone was either a large ring surrounding the target's starting position (ring condition) or a small disk that became visible before the target appeared (disk condition). The interception location gradually became apparent in the ring condition, whereas it was immediately apparent in the disk condition. In the ring condition, subjects pursued the target with their gaze. Their heads and hands gradually moved in the direction of the future tap position. In the disk condition, subjects immediately directed their gaze toward the hitting zone by moving both their eyes and heads. They also moved their hands to the future tap position sooner than in the ring condition. In a second and third experiment, we made the target's movement more predictable. Although this made the targets easier to pursue, subjects now shifted their gaze to the hitting zone soon after the target appeared in the ring condition. In the disk condition, they still usually shifted their gaze to the hitting zone at the beginning of the trial. Together, the experiments show that predictability of the interception location is more important than predictability of target movement in determining how we move to intercept targets. NEW & NOTEWORTHY We show that if people are required to intercept a target at a known location, they direct their gaze to the interception point as soon as they can rather than pursuing the target with their eyes for as long as possible. The predictability of the interception location rather than the predictability of the path to that location largely determines how the eyes, head, and hand move.

When lifting an object, it takes time to decide how heavy it is. How does this weight judgment develop? To answer this question, we examined when visual size information has to be present to induce a size-weight illusion. We found that a short glimpse (200 ms) of size information is sufficient to induce a size-weight illusion. The illusion occurred not only when the glimpse was before the onset of lifting but also when the object's weight could already be felt. Only glimpses more than 300 ms after the onset of lifting did not influence the judged weight. This suggests that it takes about 300 ms to reach a perceptual decision about the weight.

With every eye movement, visual input projected onto our retina changes drastically. The fundamental question of how we keep track of relevant objects and movement targets has puzzled scientists for more than a century. Recent advances suggested that this can be accomplished through the process of predictive remapping of visual attention to the future post-saccadic locations of relevant objects. Evidence for the existence of predictive remapping of attention was first provided by Rolfs et al. (2011) ( Nature Neuroscience, 14 , 252-256). However, they used a single distant control location away from the task-relevant locations, which could have biased the allocation of visual attention. In this study we used a similar experimental paradigm as Rolfs et al. (2011), but probed attention equally likely at all possible locations. Our results showed that discrimination performance was higher at the remapped location than at a distant control location, but not compared to the other two control locations. A re-analysis of the results obtained by Rolfs et al. (2011) revealed a similar pattern. Together, these findings suggest that it is likely that previous reports of the predictive remapping of attention were due to a diffuse spread of attention to the task-relevant locations rather than to a specific shift toward the target's future retinotopic location.

When asked to move their unseen hand-to-visual targets, people exhibit idiosyncratic but reliable visuo-proprioceptive matching errors. Unsurprisingly, vision and proprioception quickly align when these errors are made apparent by providing visual feedback of the position of the hand. However, retention of this learning is limited, such that the original matching errors soon reappear when visual feedback is removed. Several recent motor learning studies have shown that reward feedback can improve retention relative to error feedback. Here, using a visuo-proprioceptive position-matching task, we examined whether binary reward feedback can be effectively exploited to reduce matching errors and, if so, whether this learning leads to improved retention relative to learning based on error feedback. The results show that participants were able to adjust the visuo-proprioceptive mapping with reward feedback, but that the level of retention was similar to that observed when the adjustment was accomplished with error feedback. Therefore, similar to error feedback, reward feedback allows for temporary recalibration, but does not support long-lasting retention of this recalibration.

There are two main anatomically and physiologically defined visual pathways connecting the primary visual cortex with higher visual areas: the ventral and the dorsal pathway. The influential two-visual-systems hypothesis postulates that visual attributes are analyzed differently for different functions: in the dorsal pathway visual information is analyzed to guide actions, whereas in the ventral pathway visual information is analyzed for perceptual judgments. We here show that a person who cannot identify objects due to an extensive bilateral ventral brain lesion is able to judge the velocity at which an object moves. Moreover, both his velocity judgements and his interceptive actions are as susceptible to a motion illusion as those of people without brain lesions. These findings speak in favor of the idea that dorsal structures process information about attributes such as velocity, irrespective of whether such information is used for perceptual judgments or to guide actions., Competing Interests: The authors declare no competing interests.

Recently it has been shown that rewarded variability can be used to adapt visuomotor behavior. However, its relevance seems limited because adaptation to binary rewards has been demonstrated only when the same movement is repeated throughout the experiment. We therefore investigated whether the adaptation is action-specific and whether the amount of exploration depends on spatial complexity. Participants pointed to 3-D visual targets without seeing their hand and could use only binary reward feedback to adapt their movements. We varied the number of target positions and the number of dimensions the feedback was based on. Because the feedback was based on a 5-cm rightward shifted hand position, adaptation was needed for good performance. The participants started naïve to the perturbation. If actions were made toward a single target position and the feedback was based on the lateral component of their response only, participants adapted completely within 200 trials. Having more than 1 target position or more than 1 dimension of performance resulted in considerably less adaptation but did not affect the exploration. Thus, reward-based adaptation can generalize across actions but is reduced by spatial complexity, whereas exploration is not affected by spatial complexity. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).

People make systematic errors when matching the location of an unseen index finger with that of a visual target. These errors are consistent over time, but idiosyncratic and surprisingly task-specific. The errors that are made when moving the unseen index finger to a visual target are not consistent with the errors when moving a visual target to the unseen index finger. To test whether such inconsistencies arise because a large part of the matching errors originate during movement execution, we compared errors in moving the unseen finger to a target with biases in deciding which of two visual targets was closer to the index finger before the movement. We found that the judgment as to which is the closest target was consistent with the matching errors. This means that inconsistencies in visuo-proprioceptive matching errors are not caused by systematic errors in movement execution, but are likely to be related to biases in sensory transformations.

Comparing many ways of measuring and analyzing reaction times reveals that the chosen method influences both the judged reaction time and, more importantly, conclusions about how the reaction time depends on the circumstances under study. The task was to lift one's finger in response to a tone. The response amplitude was either constrained or not. Constraining the amplitude made the response less vigorous. When the response was less vigorous it took longer to move far enough to release a switch or exceed the elasticity of the finger pulp. Although using a micro-switch would have made the reaction time appear to be longer for the constrained movement, reaction times determined in the most reliable ways were not systematically longer for the constrained movement. The most reliable method is to use extrapolation of the change in the average force that the finger exerts on the surface to estimate the reaction time.

People can quickly adjust their goal-directed hand movements to an unexpected visual perturbation (a target jump or background motion). Does this ability decrease with age? We examined how aging affects both the timing and vigor of fast manual and postural adjustments to visual perturbations. Young and older adults stood in front of a horizontal screen. They were instructed to tap on targets presented on the screen as quickly and accurately as possible by moving their hand in the sagittal direction. In some trials, the target or the background moved laterally when the hand started to move. The young and older adults tapped equally accurately, but older adults' movement times were about 160 ms longer. The manual responses were similar for the young and older adults, but the older adults took about 15 ms longer to respond to both kinds of visual perturbations. The manual responses were also less vigorous for the older adults. In contrast to the young adults, the older adults responded more strongly to the motion of the background than to the target jump, probably because the elderly rely more on visual information for their posture. Thus, aging delays responses to visual perturbations, while at the same time making people rely more on the visual surrounding to adjust goal-directed movements.

This paper reviews our understanding of the interception of moving objects. Interception is a demanding task that requires both spatial and temporal precision. The required precision must be achieved on the basis of imprecise and sometimes biased sensory information. We argue that people make precise interceptive movements by continuously adjusting their movements. Initial estimates of how the movement should progress can be quite inaccurate. As the movement evolves, the estimate of how the rest of the movement should progress gradually becomes more reliable as prediction is replaced by sensory information about the progress of the movement. The improvement is particularly important when things do not progress as anticipated. Constantly adjusting one's estimate of how the movement should progress combines the opportunity to move in a way that one anticipates will best meet the task demands with correcting for any errors in such anticipation. The fact that the ongoing movement might have to be adjusted can be considered when determining how to move, and any systematic anticipation errors can be corrected on the basis of the outcome of earlier actions.

When a distractor is presented in close spatial proximity to a target, a saccade tends to land in between the two objects rather than on the target. This robust phenomenon (also referred to as the global effect) is thought to reflect unresolved competition between target and distractor. It is unclear whether this landing bias persists across saccades since a saccade displaces the retinotopic representations of target and distractor. In the present study participants made successive saccades towards two saccadic targets which were presented simultaneously with an irrelevant distractor in close proximity to the second saccade target. The second saccade was either visually-guided or memory-guided. For the memory-guided trials, the second saccade showed a landing bias towards the location of the distractor, despite the disappearance of the distractor after the first saccade. In contrast, for the visually-guided trials, the bias was corrected and the landing bias was eliminated, even for saccades with the shortest intersaccadic intervals. This suggests that the biased saccade plan was remapped across the first saccade. Therefore, we conclude that the target-distractor competition was not resolved across a saccade, but can be resolved based on visual information that is available after a saccade.

Humans use a stereotypical movement pattern to grasp a target object. What is the cause of this stereotypical pattern? One of the possible factors is that the target object is considered an obstacle at positions other than the envisioned goal positions for the digits: while each digit aims for a goal position on the target object, they avoid other positions on the target object even if these positions do not obstruct the movement. According to this hypothesis, the maximum grip aperture will be higher if the risk of colliding with the target object is larger. Based on this hypothesis, we made a set of two unique predictions for grasping a vertically oriented cuboid at its sides at different heights. For cuboids of the same height, the maximum grip aperture will be smaller when grasped higher. For cuboids whose height varies with grip height, the maximum grip aperture will be larger when grasped higher. Both predicted relations were experimentally confirmed. This result supports the idea that considering the target object as an obstacle at positions other than the envisioned goal positions for the digits is underlying the stereotypical movement patterns in grasping. The goal positions of the digits thus influence the maximum grip aperture even if the distance between the goal positions on the target object does not change., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

The original publication of this paper contained an error. The background motion speeds were actually 20 and 60 cm/s instead of the 2 and 6 cm/s mentioned in the paper (also in figures). It does not affect any of the results, interpretation or conclusion.

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.

It has been proposed that haptic spatial perception depends on one's visual abilities. We tested spatial perception in the workspace using a combination of haptic matching and line drawing tasks. There were 132 participants with varying degrees of visual ability ranging from congenitally blind to normally sighted. Each participant was blindfolded and asked to match a haptic target position felt under a table with their nondominant hand using a pen in their dominant hand. Once the pen was in position on the tabletop, they had to draw a line of equal length to a previously felt reference object by moving the pen laterally. We used targets at three different locations to evaluate whether different starting positions relative to the body give rise to different matching errors, drawn line lengths, or drawn line angles. We found no influence of visual ability on matching error, drawn line length, or line angle, but we found that early-blind participants are slightly less consistent in their matching errors across space. We conclude that the elementary haptic abilities tested in these tasks do not depend on visual experience.

When reaching towards an object while standing, one's hand responds very quickly to visual perturbations such as the target being displaced or the background moving. Such responses require postural adjustments. When the background moves, its motion might be attributed to self-motion in a stable world, and thereby induce compensatory postural adjustments that affect the hand. The changes in posture associated with a given hand movement response may, therefore, be different for the two types of perturbations. To see whether they are, we asked standing participants to move their hand in the sagittal direction away from their body to targets displayed on a horizontal screen in front of them. The target displacements and background motion were in the lateral direction. We found hand movement responses that were in line with earlier reports, with a latency that was slightly shorter for target displacements than for background motion, and that was independent of target displacement size or background motion speed. The trunk responded to both perturbations with a modest lateral sway. The two main findings were that the upper trunk responded even before the hand did so and that the head responded to background motion but hardly responded to target displacements. These findings suggest that postural adjustments associated with adjusting the hand movement precede the actual adjustments to the movement of the hand, while at the same time, participants try to keep their head stable on the basis of visual information.

In haptic shared control systems (HSC), a fixed strength of guidance force equates to a fixed level of control authority, which can be insufficient for complex tasks. An adaptable control authority based on operator input can allow the HSC system to better assist the operator under varied conditions. In this paper, we experimentally investigate () an adaptable authority HSC system that provides the operator with a direct way to adjust the control authority based on applied grip force. This system can serve as an intuitive 'manual override' function in case of HSC system malfunction. In a position tracking task, we explore two opposite approaches to adapt the control authority: increasing versus decreasing guidance strength with operator grip. These approaches were compared with unassisted control and two levels of fixed-level haptic guidance. Results show that the grip-adaptable approach allowed the operators to increase performance over unassisted control and over a weak guidance. At the same time, the approach substantially reduced the operator physical control effort required to cope with HSC system disturbances. Predictions based on the formalized model of the complete human-in-the-loop system corresponded to the experimental results, implying that such validated formalization can be used for model-based analysis and design of guidance systems.

The brain rapidly adapts reaching movements to changing circumstances by using visual feedback about errors. Providing reward in addition to error feedback facilitates the adaptation but the underlying mechanism is unknown. Here, we investigate whether the proportion of trials rewarded (the 'reward abundance') influences how much participants adapt to their errors. We used a 3D multi-target pointing task in which reward alone is insufficient for motor adaptation. Participants (N = 423) performed the pointing task with feedback based on a shifted hand-position. On a proportion of trials we gave them rewarding feedback that their hand hit the target. Half of the participants only received this reward feedback. The other half also received feedback about endpoint errors. In different groups, we varied the proportion of trials that was rewarded. As expected, participants who received feedback about their errors did adapt, but participants who only received reward-feedback did not. Critically, participants who received abundant rewards adapted less to their errors than participants who received less reward. Thus, reward abundance negatively influences how much participants learn from their errors. Probably participants used a mechanism that relied more on the reward feedback when the reward was abundant. Because participants could not adapt to the reward, this interfered with adaptation to errors.

It has been hypothesised that our actions are less susceptible to visual illusions than our perceptual judgements because similar information is processed for perception and action in separate pathways. We test this hypothesis for subjects intercepting a moving object that appears to move at a different speed than its true speed due to an illusion. The object was a moving Gabor patch: a sinusoidal grating of which the luminance contrast is modulated by a two-dimensional Gaussian. We manipulated the patch's apparent speed by moving the grating relative to the Gaussian. We used separate two-interval forced choice discrimination tasks to determine how moving the grating influenced ten people's judgements of the object's position and velocity while they were fixating. Based on their perceptual judgements, and knowing that our ability to correct for errors that arise from relying on incorrect judgements are limited by a sensorimotor delay of about 100 msec, we predicted the extent to which subjects would tap ahead of or behind similar targets when trying to intercept them at the fixation location. The predicted errors closely matched the actual errors that subjects made when trying to intercept the targets. This finding does not support the two visual streams hypothesis. The results are consistent with the idea that the extent to which an illusion influences an action tells us something about the extent to which the action relies on the percept in question., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The division of labor in visual processing between two anatomically relatively separate cortical pathways, a ventral and a dorsal stream, has been hotly debated in the last decades. One influential model is the What & How pathway model, suggesting that the separation is along ventral perception versus dorsal action, although the degree of functional separation between the two streams is controversial. An implication of this model is that perception and memory-guided movements are highly sensitive to visual contextual illusions, whereas visually-guided movements are largely immune to them. Here, we summarize our recent behavioral and imaging data obtained in single and double saccade paradigms that test this proposal, with a focus on the role of time in visuomotor processing and updating. We describe results showing that presentation time of the illusion affects both saccade amplitude and perceptual judgments in a similar way. We also discuss behavioral findings showing that visuomotor updating is affected by illusory context. Complementary neuroimaging data suggest a neural correlate of these findings in dorsal stream areas. Taken together, these results are suggestive of a dynamic, common visual representation that drives both perception and action, or - at least - that there is no absolute functional specialization of the two visual processing streams., (Crown Copyright © 2016. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Directing our gaze towards a moving target has two known advantages for judging its trajectory: the spatial resolution with which the target is seen is maximized, and signals related to the eyes' movements are combined with retinal cues to better judge the target's motion. We here explore whether tracking a target with one's eyes also prevents factors that are known to give rise to systematic errors in judging retinal speeds from resulting in systematic errors in interception. Subjects intercepted white or patterned disks that moved from left to right across a large screen at various constant velocities while either visually tracking the target or fixating the position at which they were required to intercept the target. We biased retinal motion perception by moving the pattern within the patterned targets. This manipulation led to large systematic errors in interception when subjects were fixating, but not when they were tracking the target. The reduction in the errors did not depend on how smoothly the eyes were tracking the target shortly before intercepting it. We propose that tracking targets with one's eyes when one wants to intercept them makes one less susceptible to biases in judging their motion.

In this chapter, we discuss the way in which visual information is gathered and try to relate this to the task at hand. It is well established that people direct their gaze toward the places at which they expect to be able to gather the most useful information. Studies of gaze during goal-directed actions show that people also make sure to gather information precisely at the moment that they need it. We argue that the eye movements that people make during interception tasks and the precision that people achieve in such tasks suggest that people constantly update their estimates of the details that are needed to successfully hit the target. The updating predominantly consists of replacing the previously acquired information, rather than of adding to such information., (© 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

The reach-to-grasp movement is a prototype of human movement coordination. Since the pioneering work of Jeannerod (Attention and performance, ix. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 153-169, 1981), this movement is generally considered to be a coordinated combination of hand transport and grip formation. One of the main theoretical reasons for choosing transport and grip as building blocks is that they are anatomically independent: one can determine for each muscle, joint or brain area whether it belongs to transport or grip. We have proposed a different view on grasping, in which the coordination problem is formulated as one related to the movements of the digits (Smeets and Brenner in Motor Control 3:237-271, 1999). According to this view, both the transport of the hand and the formation of the grip emerge from the combination of independent digits' movements towards the objects' surface. This independency of the digits resembles the independence of synergies (as discussed in the chapter of d'Avella). Different synergies are activated independently, but a single muscle can be part of several synergies. In this chapter we will present three types of experiments that were designed to test to what extent the individual digits' movements can be considered the building blocks of the reach-to-grasp movement.