Calibration is both functional and anatomical.

Bingham and Pagano (1998) described calibration as a mapping from embodied perceptual units to an embodied action unit and suggested that it is an inherent component of perception/action that yields accurate targeted actions. We tested two predictions of this "Mapping Theory." First, calibration should transfer between limbs, because it involves a mapping from perceptual units to an action unit, and thus is functionally specific to the action (Pan, Coats, and Bingham, 2014). We used distorted haptic feedback to calibrate feedforward right hand reaches and tested right and left hand reaches after calibration. The calibration transferred. Second, the Mapping Theory predicts that limb specific calibration should be possible because the units are embodied and anatomy contributes to their scaling. Limbs must be calibrated to one another given potential anatomical differences among limbs. We used distorted haptic feedback to calibrate feedforward reaches with right and left arms simultaneously in opposite directions relative to a visually specified target. Reaches tested after calibration revealed reliable limb specific calibration. Both predictions were confirmed. This resolves a prevailing controversy as to whether calibration is functional (Bruggeman & Warren, 2010; Rieser, Pick, Ashmead, & Garing, 1995) or anatomical (Durgin et al., 2003; Durgin & Pelah, 1999). Necessarily, it is both.

[1]  Rob Withagen,et al.  The Calibration of Walking Transfers to Crawling: Are Action Systems Calibrated? , 2002 .

[2]  Geoffrey P. Bingham,et al.  Calibrating grasp size and reach distance: interactions reveal integral organization of reaching-to-grasp movements , 2008, Experimental Brain Research.

[3]  Dieterich J. Schuring,et al.  Scale Models in Engineering: Fundamentals and Applications , 1977 .

[4]  Geoffrey P Bingham,et al.  Perturbation of perceptual units reveals dominance hierarchy in cross calibration. , 2014, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[5]  Adar Pelah,et al.  Visuomotor adaptation without vision? , 1999, Experimental Brain Research.

[6]  Gordon M. Redding,et al.  Adaptive Spatial Alignment , 1997 .

[7]  Geoffrey P. Bingham,et al.  Calibration of Distance and Size Does Not Calibrate Shape Information: Comparison of Dynamic Monocular and Static and Dynamic Binocular Vision , 2005 .

[8]  G. J. van Ingen Schenau,et al.  Force, velocity and energy flow during the overarm throw in female handball players. , 1985, Journal of biomechanics.

[9]  Geoffrey P Bingham,et al.  The dynamics of sensorimotor calibration in reaching-to-grasp movements. , 2013, Journal of neurophysiology.

[10]  Frank H. Durgin,et al.  Not Letting the Left Leg Know What the Right Leg is Doing , 2003, Psychological science.

[11]  William H Warren,et al.  The Direction of Walking—but Not Throwing or Kicking—Is Adapted by Optic Flow , 2010, Psychological science.

[12]  Christopher C. Pagano,et al.  Comparing Verbal and Reaching Responses to Visually Perceived Egocentric Distances , 2001 .

[13]  Rob Withagen,et al.  The role of feedback information for calibration and attunement in perceiving length by dynamic touch. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[14]  G. Bingham,et al.  Hefting for a maximum distance throw: a smart perceptual mechanism. , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[15]  W. E. Baker,et al.  Similarity Methods in Engineering Dynamics: Theory and Practice of Scale Modeling , 1973 .

[16]  Geoffrey P Bingham,et al.  Is hefting to perceive the affordance for throwing a smart perceptual mechanism? , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[17]  Rob Withagen,et al.  Transfer of calibration in length perception by dynamic touch , 2004, Perception & psychophysics.

[18]  Michael T. Turvey,et al.  Contrasting orientations to the theory of visual information processing. , 1977 .

[19]  Geoffrey P. Bingham,et al.  Dynamics and the problem of visual event recognition , 1996 .

[20]  W. Warren,et al.  Visual guidance of walking through apertures: body-scaled information for affordances. , 1987, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[21]  Measurement , 2007 .

[22]  Anne E. Garing,et al.  Calibration of human locomotion and models of perceptual-motor organization. , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[23]  J. Gibson.  The Senses Considered As Perceptual Systems , 1967 .

[24]  W. J. Duncan.  Physical Similarity and Dimensional Analysis , 1953 .

[25]  G P Bingham,et al.  The necessity of a perception-action approach to definite distance perception: monocular distance perception to guide reaching. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[26]  David Carl Ipsen.  Units, dimensions, and dimensionless numbers , 2011 .

[27]  C. S. Harris.  Adaptation to Displaced Vision: Visual, Motor, or Proprioceptive Change? , 1963, Science.

[28]  Daniel S. Mcconnell,et al.  Reaching measures of monocular distance perception: Forward versus side-to-side head movements and haptic feedback , 2000, Perception & psychophysics.

[29]  Geoffrey P Bingham,et al.  Calibrating reach distance to visual targets. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[30]  Mark Mon-Williams,et al.  Natural prehension in trials without haptic feedback but only when calibration is allowed , 2007, Neuropsychologia.

[31]  Geoffrey P. Bingham,et al.  The rate of adaptation to displacement prisms remains constant despite acquisition of rapid calibration , 1999 .

[32]  M T Turvey,et al.  Haptically perceiving the distances reachable with hand-held objects. , 1988, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[33]  Geoffrey P Bingham,et al.  Calibration is action specific but perturbation of perceptual units is not. , 2014, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.