avocets
Avocets
rss 2.0 subscribe to this page
search


view all
•  projects
•  owners
•  tags
Kitazawa,S Kimura,T. "Prism adaptation of reaching movements: specificity for the velocity of reaching." The journal of neuroscience [0270-6474] 17.4 (1997). 1481-1492.
Abstract
Accurate reaching toward a visual target is disturbed after the visual field is displaced by prisms but recovers with practice. When the prisms are removed, subjects misreach in the direction opposite to the prism displacement (aftereffect). The present study demonstrated that the severity of the aftereffect depends on the velocity of the movements during and after the visual displacement. Trained subjects were required to reach with one of four movement durations (<300, ~800, ~2000, and ~5000 msec) from a fixed starting point to a target that appeared at a random location on a tangent screen (400 mm away). The size of the aftereffect was largest when the movement after the removal was performed with the same duration as that performed with the prisms. It became smaller as the difference in velocity became larger. When the contralateral arm was used after visual displacement, the aftereffect was never significant. Because the adaptation does not generalize across velocities or to the other arm, we infer that the underlying changes occur at a later stage in the transformation from visual input to motor output, in which not only the direction but also the time-dependent parameters of movements, such as velocity, acceleration or force, are represented.
Sober, S.J. & Sabes, P.N. (2005), Flexible strategies for sensory integration during motor planning, Nature Neuroscience, 8, 490-497. 

Redding, G.M., Wallace, B., Effects of pointing rate and availability of visual feedback on visual and proprioceptive components of prism adaptation, Journal of Motor Behavior, 24.3, 226-237. 

Abstract

When the limb becomes visible early in a pointing movement proprioceptive adaptation is greater than visual, but if visual feedback is delayed until the end of the movement the reverse is true. However, this effect occurs only if pointing rate is low. With high rates, adaptation is proprioceptive in nature regardless of feedback availability.

Different factors may determine the displacements in reaching that occur as a result of wearing prism glasses. Both visual and propioceptive factors are probably involved, but in previous studies, visual factos have been underemphasized. These experiments explored whether prism after-effects could be confined to a specific portion of the visual field. This would rule out a purely proprioceptive-motor hypothesis.

Subjects wore goggles over one eye with the other eye occluded. This allowed a monocular visual field of 60 degrees. Objects in the visual field were displaced by 22 degrees from their true position. Subjects were asked to look at the reflection of a target in a mirror so placed that the target appeared to lie on the horizontal surface of a table. The subject could mark the apparent position of the targets, but the mirror concealed his hands and marks, so subjects could not see or correct errors of localization. There were 3 phases of each experiment. The first was the pre-exposure phase in which the subject marked the apparent position of the target points. Then there was an exposure period of 1-min in which the subject with goggles on reached for a target and could see his active hand. When the exposure period was over, the goggles were removed and the subject repeated the same marking procedure as in pre-exposure. The difference in position between the pre-exposure and post-exposure markings served as a measure of the size of the Displacement after-effect.

Experiment I - adaptation to induced displacement in a limb seen through the prism, but not moved by the subject.
In the pre-exposure phase, subjects marked the apparent location of the target with the active hand first and then with the passive hand. During the exposure period, goggles were put on and the active hand was used to mark the target. In one condition, the passive hand was visible. In the other condition, the passive hand was held outside of the field of view. In the post-exposure phase, the subjects marked the location of the target with the passive hand and then the active hand to distinguish between visual and proprioceptive explainations for the DAE. Subjects showed a significant DAE when marking with the passive hand if it had been visible during the exposure period, but not if the hand had not been visible.

Experiments II & III - exposure of a limited retinal area to the prism to study the transfer of DAE between the central and peripheral regions of retina.
In the pre-exposure phase, subjects marked the location of three targets at 20 degree intervals across the visual field while fixating in the center of the field (so that peripheral areas of the retina were used when marking the lateral target points). In one exposure condition, the visual field through the prism was limited to 10 degrees. In the second condition, the goggles were masked to allow a 15 degree horizontal and a 10 degree vertical field at the periphery of the goggles' field, but there was also a pinhole in the center allowing the subject to hold fixation. The two conditions achieved differential stimulation of the central and peripheral retinal areas.
If subjects saw their hands moving in the central 10 degrees of the visual field, they showed equally large after-effects at all targets. If the subjects only saw their displaced hand in the periphery of the retina, the after-effects were greater on the exposed side of the field than on the other parts. Experiment III was the same except fixation was not required during the post-exposure phase. In this case, there was not difference in DAE for a central or lateral target.

The critical factor in the production of intermanual trasnfer of DAE was the presence of the passive hand in the visual field while the active hand was seen moving. When the passive hand was not in the field, there was no opportunity for a combined input to reach the comparator.

Bedford, F.L., Perceptual and Cognitive Spatial-Learning, Journal of experimental psychology, human perception and performance [0096-1523] 19.3 (1993). 517-530.
 
Abstract 
 
Ss were taught novel mappings between visual space and motor space with either a variant on a prism adaptation paradigm (Experiments 1 and 2) or a nonperceptual cognitive task (Experiments 3 and 4). First, discrimination training specified that 1 visual location required a new pointing response but another location did not. This led to unusual generalization unlike typical generalization decrement. Second, training at 9 locations specified that 1 location required a new response but that the remaining 8 did not. This simple isolation mapping was unlearnable and instead a flat function fit through all of space. In contrast, for the cognitive paradigm, not only was isolation of one region of space easily learned, it was the preferred pattern of generalization. Implications for perceptual learning, as well as the qualitative distinctions between perceptual and cognitive learning, are discussed.

Haijiang et al. 103 (2): 483 -- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Until half a century ago, associative learning played a fundamental role in theories of perceptual appearance [Berkeley, G. (1709) An Essay Towards a New Theory of Vision (Dublin), 1st Ed.]. But starting in 1955 [Gibson, J. J. & Gibson, E. J. (1955) Psychol. Rev. 62, 32-41], most studies of perceptual learning have not been concerned with association or appearance but rather with improvements in discrimination ability. Here we describe a "cue recruitment" experiment, which is a straightforward adaptation of Pavlov's classical conditioning experiment, that we used to measure changes in visual appearance caused by exposure to novel pairings of signals in visual stimuli. Trainees viewed movies of a rotating wire-frame (Necker) cube. This stimulus is perceptually bistable. On training trials, depth cues (stereo and occlusion) were added to force the perceived direction of rotation. Critically, an additional signal was also added, contingent on rotation direction. Stimuli on test trials contained the new signal but not the depth cues. Over 45 min, two of the three new signals that we tested acquired the ability to bias perceived rotation direction on their own. Results were consistent across the eight trainees in each experiment, and the new cue's effectiveness was long lasting. Whereas most adaptation aftereffects on appearance are opposite in direction to the training stimuli, these effects were positive. An individual new signal can be recruited by the visual system as a cue for the construction of visual appearance. Cue recruitment experiments may prove useful for reexamining of the role of experience in perception.

Research for a Psyc211-Perceptual Learning Term Paper
Rode,G Rossetti,Y. "Prism adaptation improves representational neglect." Neuropsychologia [0028-3932] 39.11 (2001). 1250-1254.
tagged perceptual_learning prism_adaptation by jmklein ...on 03-APR-06