Missing in action: the effect of obstacle position and size on avoidance while reaching

When reaching to objects, our hand and arm rarely collide with non-target objects, even if our workspace is cluttered. The simplicity of these actions hides what must be a relatively sophisticated obstacle avoidance system. Recent studies on patients with optic ataxia and visual form agnosia have demonstrated that obstacle avoidance is an automatic process, likely governed by the dorsal stream (Schindler et al. 2004; Rice et al. 2006). The current study sought to quantify how normal participants react to changes in the size and position of non-target objects in and around their workspace. In the first experiment, 13 right-handed subjects performed reaches to a target strip in the presence of two non-target objects, which varied in depth and horizontal configuration. We found that objects with horizontal alignments that were asymmetric about midline created systematic deviations in reach trajectory away from midline, with participants seeming to maximize the distance away from the two objects. These deviations were significantly greater for objects nearer in depth and nearly disappeared when the objects were placed beyond the target strip. Accompanying this pattern of deviation were other significant obstructing effects whereby reaches were executed more slowly when objects were close in depth and close to the participants reaching (right) hand. In the second experiment, we varied the height of the two objects, as well as the depth. Object pairs were now both tall, both short, or one-short/one-tall. We replicated the significant depth effects of the first experiment, extending the finding to include sensitivity to the size of the objects. Here the obstructing effect caused by short objects was similar to tall objects when those objects were placed at the depth of the reach target, but less than the tall objects when placed at mid-reach. Taken together, these experiments suggest that humans possess a sophisticated obstacle avoidance system that is extremely sensitive and conservative in evaluating potential obstacles and adjusting the reach accordingly.

[1]  M. Perenin,et al.  Optic ataxia: a specific disruption in visuomotor mechanisms. I. Different aspects of the deficit in reaching for objects. , 1988, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[2]  James R Tresilian,et al.  Selective attention in reaching: when is an object not a distractor? , 1999, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[3]  U. Castiello.  Mechanisms of selection for the control of hand action , 1999, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[4]  J. Tresilian.  Attention in action or obstruction of movement? A kinematic analysis of avoidance behavior in prehension , 1998, Experimental Brain Research.

[5]  M. Goodale,et al.  Separate visual pathways for perception and action , 1992, Trends in Neurosciences.

[6]  Umberto Castiello,et al.  The effects of abrupt onset of 2-D and 3-D distractors on prehension movements , 2001, Perception & psychophysics.

[7]  T. R. Jordan,et al.  Perception and action in 'visual form agnosia'. , 1991, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[8]  S. Tipper,et al.  Hand deviations away from visual cues: Indirect evidence for inhibition , 2006, Experimental Brain Research.

[9]  M. Goodale,et al.  Ventral occipital lesions impair object recognition but not object-directed grasping: an fMRI study. , 2003, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[10]  B. Bridgeman,et al.  Interaction of cognitive and sensorimotor maps of visual space , 1997, Perception & psychophysics.

[11]  A. Milner,et al.  Visually guided reaching: bilateral posterior parietal lesions cause a switch from fast visuomotor to slow cognitive control , 2005, Neuropsychologia.

[12]  A. Milner,et al.  Avoidance of obstacles in the absence of visual awareness , 2004, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[13]  J R Tresilian,et al.  Developmental changes in the response to obstacles during prehension. , 2005, Journal of motor behavior.

[14]  Melvyn A. Goodale,et al.  The effects of landmarks on the performance of delayed and real-time pointing movements , 2005, Experimental Brain Research.

[15]  U. Castiello.  Grasping a fruit: selection for action. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[16]  Steven P. Tipper,et al.  Action-centred negative priming: Evidence for reactive inhibition , 2002 .

[17]  James R. Tresilian,et al.  The effect of obstacle position on reach-to-grasp movements , 2001, Experimental Brain Research.

[18]  Robert D McIntosh,et al.  Reaching between obstacles in spatial neglect and visual extinction. , 2004, Progress in brain research.

[19]  L. Jakobson,et al.  A neurological dissociation between perceiving objects and grasping them , 1991, Nature.

[20]  S. Jackson,et al.  Are non-relevant objects represented in working memory? The effect of non-target objects on reach and grasp kinematics , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.

[21]  S. Tipper,et al.  Selective Reaching to Grasp: Evidence for Distractor Interference Effects , 1997 .

[22]  M. Mon-Williams,et al.  Intact automatic avoidance of obstacles in patients with visual form agnosia , 2006, Experimental Brain Research.

[23]  A. Milner,et al.  Automatic avoidance of obstacles is a dorsal stream function: evidence from optic ataxia , 2004, Nature Neuroscience.

[24]  A. Milner,et al.  Preserved obstacle avoidance during reaching in patients with left visual neglect , 2004, Neuropsychologia.

[25]  Dirk Kerzel,et al.  Immediate spatial distortions of pointing movements induced by visual landmarks , 2004 .

[26]  S. Tipper,et al.  Selective reaching: evidence for action-centered attention. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.