Biomedical subjects

Eli Brenner

Publications and source records attributed to Eli Brenner.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2003

Hitting moving targets: a dissociation between the use of the target's speed and direction of motion.

Previous work has indicated that people do not use their judgment of a target's speed to determine where to hit it. Instead, they use their judgment of the target's changing position and an expected speed (based on the speed of previous targets). In the present study we investigate whether people also ignore the target's apparent direction of motion, and use the target's changing position and an expected direction of motion instead. Subjects hit targets that moved in slightly different directions across a screen. Sometimes the targets disappeared after 150 ms, long before the subjects could reach the screen. This prevented subjects from using the target's changing position to adjust their movements, making it possible to evaluate whether subjects were relying on the perceived or an expected (average) direction to guide their movements. The background moved perpendicular to the average direction of motion in some trials. This influences the target's perceived direction of motion while leaving its perceived position unaffected. When the background was stationary, subjects hit disappearing targets along their trajectory, just as they hit ones that remained visible. Moving the background affected the direction in which subjects started to move their hand, in accordance with the illusory change in direction of target motion. If the target disappeared, this resulted in a hit that was systematically off the target's trajectory. If the target remained visible, subjects corrected their initial error. Presumably they did so on the basis of information about the target's changing position, because if the target disappeared they did not correct the error. We conclude that people do use the target's perceived direction of motion to determine where to hit it. Thus the perceived direction of motion is treated differently than the perceived speed. This suggests that the motion of an object is not broken down into speed components in different directions, but that speed and direction are perceived and used separately.

Humans↗

PubMed2003

Similar effects of a motion-in-depth illusion on manual tracking and perceptual judgements.

We previously demonstrated that changing the apparent extent of a target's apparent motion-in-depth, by manipulating pictorial depth cues in the surrounding, affected perceptual judgements and manual pursuit to the same extent. Here, we investigated whether a different manipulation of the extent of motion (expanding and contracting the object itself) also has the same effect on both tasks. Objects were presented that changed in size as they moved on an elliptical path. The size was related to the object's position in the sagittal plane, suggesting additional motion in depth; therefore the illusion was expected to affect sagittal measures for both perception and action. We measured manual tracking and perceptual judgements of the lateral and sagittal extents of the object's elliptical trajectories. A significant correlation was found across subjects between the effect of the illusion on the perceptual and the motor task. As expected, the illusion only had a significant influence on the sagittal dimension. The size of this illusory effect was equal for perception and action.

Cues↗

PubMed2003

The influence of obstacles on the speed of grasping.

The movement time of a reach-to-grasp movement increases when obstacles are placed close to the target object. We investigated whether this increase can best be explained by limits on the grip aperture or by limits on the paths of the individual digits. In our experiment subjects were instructed to pick up an object with their index finger and thumb. There was an obstacle at either side of the object. The increase in movement time when either obstacle was placed closer to the object was best described by a model in which the movement amplitude and the distance between each obstacle and the target object are independent factors. We conclude that the way that obstacles influence the movement time in reach-to-grasp movements is determined by the extent to which they limit the digits' paths.

Efficiency↗

PubMed2003

Chromatic induction and the layout of colours within a complex scene.

A target's apparent colour is influenced by the colours in its surrounding. If the surrounding consists of a single coloured surface, the influence is a shift 'away' from the surface's colour. If the surface is more than 1 degrees from the target area the shift is very small. If there are many surfaces, then not only the average luminance and chromaticity of the surfaces matters, but also the chromatic variability. It is not yet clear whether it makes any difference where the chromatic variability is within the scene, so we constructed stimuli in which the chromatic variability was restricted to certain regions. We found that it made very little difference where the chromatic variability was located. The extent to which the average colour of nearby surfaces influences the apparent colour of the target seems to depend on the average chromatic variability of the whole scene.

Color Perception↗

PubMed2003

Impact forces cannot explain the one-target advantage in rapid aimed hand movements.

A pointing movement is executed faster when a subject is allowed to stop at the first target than when the subject has to proceed to a second target ("one-target advantage"). Our hypothesis was that this is because the impact at the target helps to stop the finger when the finger does not have to proceed to a second target. This hypothesis would predict that the horizontal force at contact with the first target should be larger when there is only one-target. Modelling smooth movements with larger forces at contact using a minimum-jerk model, shows that the peak velocity is slightly higher and it occurs later during the movement when there is only one target. Although the one-target advantage was present in our experiment, the horizontal force at contact in the one-target condition was not larger than in the two-target condition. The time of the maximum velocity did not differ, but the maximum velocity was higher in the one-target condition. Thus our hypothesis is rejected, favouring a non-mechanical explanation of the one-target advantage.

Biomechanical Phenomena↗

PubMed2003

Comparing the sensitivity of manual pursuit and perceptual judgments to pictorial depth effects.

We examined whether a pictorial depth illusion influences the manual pursuit of a moving dot to the same extent that it influences the dot's apparent displacement. Fourteen subjects performed two tasks. In one case, they used their unseen hand to track a dot that moved on an elliptical path. In the other, they first watched the dot move on the same path, and then set an ellipse to match the shape of the dot's path. The illusion influenced the two tasks to the same extent, suggesting that the visual information processing is the same for the two tasks.

Attention↗

PubMed2003

Modeling the time-dependent effect of the Ebbinghaus illusion on grasping.

Various authors have reported a small but consistent effect of the Ebbinghaus illusion on the maximum opening of the hand during prehension. This effect has been interpreted in various ways. In the present study, we focus on the time-course of the effect of contextual elements on grasping. The analysis presented here is based on a model for the control of the digits that uses two movement parameters (the approach parameter and the intended contact positions). These two parameters are based on different spatial attributes (flanker-target distance and target-edge position). As we assume that the perception of both attributes is veridical, there is no need for on-line corrections in the model. We show that this model predicts all time-dependent effects of the Ebbinghaus display on grasping. Human behavior can show a reduction in context effects over time without assuming an underlying shift from illusory towards veridical size information.

Hand Strength↗

PubMed2003

Fast corrections of movements with a computer mouse.

When we reach out for an object with our hand, we transform visual information about the object's position into muscle contractions that will bring our digits to that position. If we reach out with a tool the transformation is different, because the muscle contractions must bring the critical part of the tool to the object, rather than the digits. The difference between the motion of the hand and that of the tool can be quite large, as when moving a computer mouse across a table to bring a cursor to a position on a screen. We examined the responses to unpredictable visual perturbations during such movements. People responded about as quickly to changes in the position of the target when pointing with the mouse as when doing so with their hand. They also responded about as quickly when the cursor was displaced as when the target was displaced. We show that this is not because the visually perceived separation between target and cursor is transformed into a desired displacement of the hand. Our conclusion is that our actions are controlled by the judged positions of the end-effector and the target, even when the former is quite detached from the muscles and joints that are involved in the action.

Computers↗

PubMed2002

Adaptation of movement endpoints to perturbations of visual feedback.

We investigated the extent to which humans can quickly adapt their goal-directed arm movements to perturbed feedback. We predicted that the magnitude of adaptation to a changed relationship between vision and kinesthesia would depend on the type of perturbation, being largest when the perturbation can be generalized within egocentric frames of reference. To test this prediction we asked subjects to align a real 5-cm cube so that they could feel, but not see, with a simulation that they saw via a mirror. Subjects made successive movements between target locations in a sequence of adaptation and test phases. During adaptation phases, subjects received continuous visual feedback about the position of the real cube. The feedback was either veridical or perturbed. The perturbations were consistent with either a uniform translation, a scaling or a rotation. The latter two were relative to a central position between all the targets. During test phases, subjects received no visual feedback. We compared test movement endpoints after perturbed feedback with ones after veridical feedback. We found about 40% adaptation to translation, 20% to scaling and 10% to rotation. This difference in magnitude is consistent with the ease with which the transformation can be generalized within egocentric frames of reference. Changing the task so that it required different arm postures did not change the magnitude of adaptation, so postural configuration of the arm does not appear to be critical. Nevertheless, transfer to the unexposed arm was incomplete for translations and rotations, though it was complete for scaling, suggesting that at least part of the adaptation is posture based. We conclude that the adaptation to different kinds of perturbations not only differs in extent but also involves different (egocentric) mechanisms.

Adaptation, Physiological↗

PubMed2002

Independent control of the digits predicts an apparent hierarchy of visuomotor channels in grasping.

If an object changes position at the onset of a reach-to-grasp movement, both the transport speed and the grip aperture are adjusted. If the object changes in size at the onset, only the grip aperture is adjusted. This combination of results has been interpreted as being the consequence of a hierarchical relationship between visuomotor channels for transport and grip. We argue that our alternative view on grasping can account for the observed behaviour without making new assumptions. In our view, grasping consists of smooth (minimal jerk) movements of each digit to a target position on the object. The digits' target positions change, both when object position and when object size change. A model in which the individual digits move smoothly to these new positions yields the same behaviour as is observed experimentally.

Algorithms↗

PubMed2002

Illusions in action: consequences of inconsistent processing of spatial attributes.

Many authors have performed experiments in which subjects grasp objects in illusory surroundings. The vast majority of these studies report that illusions affect the maximum grip aperture less than they affect the perceived size. This observation has frequently been regarded as experimental evidence for separate visual systems for perception and action. In order to make this conclusion, one assumes that the grip aperture is based on a visual estimate of the object's size. We believe that it is not, and that this is why size illusions fail to influence grip aperture. Illusions generally do not affect all aspects of space perception in a consistent way, but mainly affect the perception of specific spatial attributes. This applies not only to object size, but also to other spatial attributes such as position, orientation, displacement, speed, and direction of motion. Whether an illusion influences the execution of a task will therefore depend on which spatial attributes are used rather than on whether the task is perceptual or motor. To evaluate whether illusions affect actions when they influence the relevant spatial attributes we review experimental results on various tasks with inconsistent spatial processing in mind. Doing so shows that many actions are susceptible to visual illusions. We argue that the frequently reported differential effect of illusions on perceptual judgements and goal-directed action is caused by failures to ensure that the same spatial attributes are used in the two tasks. Illusions only affect those aspects of a task that are based on the spatial attributes that are affected by the illusion.

Cues↗

PubMed2002

Throwing darts: timing is not the limiting factor.

It has been argued that precision in throwing is limited by the precision in the timing of the release. When precision is the only goal, as in throwing darts, one could therefore expect people to throw in a way that reduces sensitivity for imprecision in timing. We show that subjects do not do so, but throw in a way that reduces the sensitivity for speed errors instead. They even appear to vary the timing of release to compensate for the errors in the hand's movement. Thus timing does not appear to be the limiting factor.

Adult↗

PubMed2002

Does a complex model help to understand grasping?

Several studies have demonstrated a peculiar effect of initial aperture on the grip formation in reach-to-grasp movements. We compare these findings with the predictions of two models for prehension. The first is a very simple model that only describes the movements of the end-effectors. The second model is rather complex and takes postural constraints into account. Both models can account for many aspects of human grasping when the movement starts with the digits in contact. We compare the models' performance with published data on other initial configurations. Both models predict an effect of initial aperture that was not present in the data. The model that considers postural constraints does not perform better than the simple model. We conclude that such constraints are not responsible for the main characteristics of the reach-to-grasp movement.

Behavior↗

PubMed2002

The relation between task history and movement strategy.

In the present study, we examine whether subjects hit identical moving targets differently when the task history is different. Twelve subjects each took part in four experimental sessions. Each session consisted of recurring targets that were the same in all sessions, randomly interleaved with context targets that differed per session. We compared the movements that subjects made towards the recurring targets. There were clear influences of the preceding target on the hitting movements within a session, and clear differences between movements towards the same targets between sessions, but the latter differences were not consistently related to the kind of sessions involved. This indicates that influences of task history are limited to the use of information from preceding trials rather than to changes in how information is used (movement strategy).

Humans↗

PubMed2002

Hitting moving objects: is target speed used in guiding the hand?

We investigated what information subjects use when trying to hit moving targets. In particular, whether only visual information about the target's position is used to guide the hand to the place of interception or also information about its speed. Subjects hit targets that moved at different constant speeds and disappeared from view after varying amounts of time. This prevented the subjects from updating position information during the time that the target was invisible. Subjects hit further ahead of the disappearing point when the target moved faster, but not as much as they should have on the basis of the target's speed. This could be because more time is needed to perceive and use the correct speed than was available before the target disappeared. It could also be due to a speed-related misperception of the target's final position. The results of a second experiment were more consistent with the latter hypothesis. In a third experiment we moved the background to manipulate the perceived speed. This did not affect the hitting positions. We conclude that subjects respond only to the changing target position. Target speed influences the direction in which the hand moves indirectly, possibly via a speed-related misperception of position.

Female↗

PubMed2002

Are the original Roelofs effect and the induced Roelofs effect caused by the same shift in straight ahead?

We investigated whether the original Roelofs effect and the induced Roelofs effect are caused by the same shift in perceived straight ahead. Subjects were presented with a target within a frame in complete darkness. Target and frame could both be shifted to the left or right of objective straight ahead. On separate trials, subjects gave verbal estimates about the position of either the target or the frame. The eccentricity of the frame was underestimated (the original Roelofs effect). However, the perceived position of the target did not follow this misjudgement of the eccentricity of the frame (the induced Roelofs effect was not present). Thus, it is unlikely that both effects have a common origin in misjudging egocentric straight ahead.

Humans↗

PubMed2002

Systematic distortion of perceived 2D shape during smooth pursuit eye movements.

Even when the retinal image of a static scene is constantly shifting, as occurs when the viewer pursues a small moving object with his or her eyes, the scene is usually correctly perceived to be static. Following early suggestions by von Helmholtz, it is commonly believed that this spatial stability is achieved by combining retinal and extra-retinal signals. Here, we report a perceptually salient 2D shape distortion that can arise during pursuit. We provide evidence that the perceived 2D shape reflects retinal image contents alone, implying that the extra-retinal signal is ignored when judging 2D shape.

Form Perception↗

PubMed2002

Relative damping improves linear mass-spring models of goal-directed movements.

A limitation of a simple linear mass-spring model in describing goal directed movements is that it generates rather slow movements when the parameters are kept within a realistic range. Does this imply that the control of fast movements cannot be approximated by a linear system? In servo-control theory, it has been proposed that an optimal controller should control movement velocity in addition to position. Instead of explicitly controlling the velocity, we propose to modify a simple linear mass-spring model. We replaced the damping relative to the environment (absolute damping) with damping with respect to the velocity of the equilibrium point (relative damping). This gives the limb a tendency to move as fast as the equilibrium point. We show that such extremely simple models can generate rapid single-joint movements. The resulting maximal movement velocities were almost equal to those of the equilibrium point, which provides a simple mechanism for the control of movement speed. We further show that peculiar experimental results, such as an 'N-shaped' equilibrium trajectory and the difficulties to measure damping in dynamic conditions, may result from fitting a model with absolute damping where one with relative damping would be more appropriate. Finally, we show that the model with relative damping can be used to model subtle differences between multi-joint interceptions. The model with relative damping fits the data much better than a version of the model with absolute damping.

Attention↗