Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The use of visual feedback and on-line target information in catching and grasping

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Experimental Brain Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Although visual feedback (i.e. seeing our hand while we move it) improves the accuracy and efficiency of grasping movements, these positive effects of visual feedback are not consistently found for catching. It was the aim of our study to compare the efficiency of the use of visual feedback in grasping and catching and to explore possible reasons why visual feedback effects have been found less consistently in catching than in grasping. The first reason might be technical. Less sensitive measurement methods have been used in catching; this might explain why some catching studies did not find visual feedback effects. This problem was avoided in our study by using the same methods for both the catching and the grasping task. The effects of visual feedback were examined under standard conditions and under conditions where subjects wore prismatic glasses. Nevertheless, visual feedback effects were obtained for grasping but not for catching movements. This confirms that the difference in the use of visual feedback is real and not due to technical differences between grasping and catching studies. The second reason relates to the different temporal demands of grasping and catching. During a catching task, subjects have less time to respond, and therefore might not have sufficient time to use visual feedback. We tested this explanation with a task that required subjects to reach for a stationary object (i.e. grasping) as quickly as they had for the moving object in the catching task. However, even in this time-constrained grasping task, significant visual feedback effects were found, suggesting that time constraints do not explain the lack of visual feedback effects in catching. In our last explanation, we suggest that possibly the mode of motor control is different for catching and grasping, more particularly while grasping allows for on-line corrections, such corrections might not be possible for catching movements. We tested this explanation with a catching task that contained perturbation trials. During those perturbation trials, the target trajectory was shifted, after the subject had already started to move. We found that subjects responded to the target shifts with an appropriate shift of their catching response. This shows that on-line corrections are possible in the case of catching movements. We conclude that neither differences in the temporal demands nor in the capacity to make on-line modifications explain why visual feedback is used less effectively in the catching than in the grasping task.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1A–D
Fig. 2A–F
Fig. 3A, B
Fig. 4A–F
Fig. 5A–C

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Amazeen EL, Amazeen PG, Beek PJ (2001) Eye movements and the selection of optical information for catching. Ecolog Psychol 13:71–85

    Google Scholar 

  • Binsted G, Chua R, Helsen W, Elliott D (2001) Eye-hand coordination in goal-directed aiming. Hum Mov Sci 20:563–585

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Churchill A, Hopkins B, Roenqvist L, Vogt S (2000) Vision of the hand and environmental context in human prehension. Exp Brain Res 134:81–89

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Connolly J, Goodale M (1999) The role of visual feedback of hand position in the control of manual prehension. Exp Brain Res 125:281–6

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Davids K, Stratford R (1989) Peripheral vision and simple catching: the screen paradigm revisited. J Sport Sci 7:139–152

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Diggles VA, Grabiner MD, Garhammer J (1987) Skill level and efficacy of effector visual feedback in ball catching. Percept Mot Skills 64:987–993

    Google Scholar 

  • Fayt C, Minet M, Schepens N (1993) Childrens and adults learning of a visuomanual coordination—role of ongoing visual feedback and of spatial errors as a function of age. Percept Mot Skills 77:659–669

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fischman MG, Schneider T (1985) Skill level, vision and proprioception in simple one-handed catching. J Mot Behav 17:219–229

    Google Scholar 

  • Flash T, Henis E (1991) Arm trajectory modifications during reaching towards visual targets. J Cogn Neurosci 3:220–230

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleury M, Bard C, Gagnon M, Teasdale N (1992) Coincidence-anticipation timing: the perceptual-motor interface. In: Proteau L, Elliott D (eds) Vision and motor control. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 315–334

  • Hauck A, Sorg M, Schenk T, Färber G (1998) A biologically motivated model for the control of visually guided reach-to-grasp movements. Proc Int Conf Intell Syst 1:295–300

    Google Scholar 

  • Helsen WF, Elliott D, Starkes JL, Ricker KL (1998) Temporal and spatial coupling of point of gaze and hand movements in aiming. J Mot Behav 30:249–259

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillstrom AP, Yantis S (1994) Visual motion and attentional capture. Percept Psychophys 43:399–411

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingram HA, van Donkelaar P, Cole J, Vercher JL, Gauthier GM, Miall RC (2000) The role of proprioception and attention in a visuomotor adaptation task. Exp Brain Res 132:114–126

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jansen-Osmann P, Beirle S, Richter S, Konczak J, Kalveram KT (2002) Inverse motor models in children and adults: the role of visual feedback. Z Entwicklungspsychol Padago 34:167–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhtz-Buschbeck JP, Stolze H, Jöhnk K, Boczek-Funcke A, Illert M (1998) Development of prehension movements in children: a kinematic study. Exp Brain Res 22:424–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marquardt C, Mai N (1994) Computational procedures for movement analysis in handwriting. J Neurosci Methods 52:39–45

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Montagne G, Laurent M, Durey A, Bootsma R (1999) Movement reversals in ball catching. Exp Brain Res 129:87–92

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Neggers SFW, Bekkering H (2001) Gaze anchoring to a pointing target is present during the entire pointing movement and is driven by a non-visual signal. J Neurophysiol 86:961–970

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Paillard J (1996) Fast and slow feedback loops for the visual correction of spatial errors in a pointing task: a reappraisal. Can J Physiol Pharmacol 74:401–17

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Paillard J, Jordan P, Brouchon M (1981) Visual motion cues in prismatic adaptation: evidence of two separate and additive processes. Acta Psychol 48:253–70

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Paulignan Y, Marteniuk R, McKenzie C, Jeannerod M (1991a) Selective pertubation of visual input during prehension movements. II. The effects of changing object size. Exp Brain Res 87:407–420

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Paulignan Y, McKenzie C, Marteniuk R, Jeannerod M (1991b) Selective pertubation of visual input during prehension movements. I. The effects of changing object position. Exp Brain Res 83:502–512

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Redding GM, Rader SD, Lucas DR (1992) Cognitive load and prism adaptation. J Mot Behav 24:238–246

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Regan D (1997) Visual factors in hitting and catching. J Sports Sci 15:533–58

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rosengren K, Pick HL, von Hofsten C (1988) Role of visual information in ball catching. J Mot Behav 20:150–164

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossetti Y, Stelmach G, Desmurget M, Prablanc C, Jeannerod M (1994) The effect of viewing the static hand prior to movement onset on pointing kinematics and variability. Exp Brain Res 101:323–330

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Savelsbergh GJP, Whiting HTA (1996) Catching: a motor learning and developmental perspective. In: Heuer H, Keele SW (eds) Motor skills. Academic Press, London, pp 461–502

  • Schenk T, Mai N (1999) Time constraints improve reaching movements in an ataxic patient. Exp. Brain Res 120:214–218

    Google Scholar 

  • Schenk T, Mai N, Ditterich J, Zihl J (2000a) Can a motion-blind patient reach for moving objects? Eur J Neurosci 12:3351–3360

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schenk T, Philipp J, Häußler A, Hermsdörfer J, Hauck A, Mai N (2000b) A system for the study of hand-eye coordination in catching. J Neurosci Methods 100:3–12

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sidaway B, Yook D, Fairweather M (2001) Visual and verbal guidance in the learning of a novel motor skill. J Hum Mov Stud 40:43–63

    Google Scholar 

  • Smyth MM, Marriott AM (1982) Vision and proprioception in simple catching. J Mot Behav 14:143–152

    Google Scholar 

  • Spijkers W (1995) Visuelle Verarbeitungszeit und die Kontrolle manueller Zielbewegungen. Psychol Beitr 37:312–348

    Google Scholar 

  • Swinnen SP, Lee TD, Verschueren S, Serrien DJ, Bogaerds H (1997) Interlimb coordination: learning and transfer under different feedback conditions. Hum Mov Sci 16:749–785

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tresilian J (1999) Analysis of recent empirical challenges to an account of interceptive timing. Percept Psychophys 61:515–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Vercher JL, Gauthier GM (1992) Oculomanual coordination control—ocular and manual tracking of visual targets with delayed visual feedback of the hand motion. Exp Brain Res 90:599–609

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, SFB 462 ("Sensomotorik").

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cognitive Neuroscience Research Unit, Wolfson Institute, Queens Campus, University of Durham, Stockton-on-Tees, TS17 6BH, UK

    Thomas Schenk

  2. Department of Psychology, University of Innsbruck, Austria

    Barbara Mair

  3. Department of Psychology, Ludwig-Maximilians Universität München, Germany

    Josef Zihl

Authors
  1. Thomas Schenk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Barbara Mair
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Josef Zihl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas Schenk.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schenk, T., Mair, B. & Zihl, J. The use of visual feedback and on-line target information in catching and grasping. Exp Brain Res 154, 85–96 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-003-1642-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-003-1642-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation