Selective reaching: evidence for multiple frames of reference.

Students participated in 3 experiments investigating the use of environment- and action-centered reference frames in selective reaching. They pointed to a green target appearing either with or without a red distractor. Target-distractor distance was manipulated, and distractor interference (difference between distractor trials and no-distractor trials) was measured in reaction time, movement time, and movement endpoint. Target-distractor distance determined the dominant frame of reference. Small distances evoked an environment-centered framework that encoded targets within an external context. Large distances evoked an action-centered framework that encoded targets relative to the start position of the hand. Results support the hypothesis that the brain represents spatial information in multiple frames of reference, with the dominant frame of reference being dependent on the task demands.

[1]  S. Yantis.  Multielement visual tracking: Attention and perceptual organization , 1992, Cognitive Psychology.

[2]  M. Gentilucci,et al.  Visual distractors differentially interfere with the reaching and grasping components of prehension movements , 1998, Experimental Brain Research.

[3]  G. Baylis,et al.  Visual attention and objects: evidence for hierarchical coding of location. , 1993, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[4]  R. M. Siegel,et al.  Encoding of spatial location by posterior parietal neurons. , 1985, Science.

[5]  J. Driver,et al.  Control of Cognitive Processes: Attention and Performance XVIII , 2000 .

[6]  J. Pratt,et al.  Action-centered inhibition: Effects of distractors on movement planning and execution , 1994 .

[7]  A. Allport,et al.  Independent reference frames in human spatial memory: Body-centered and environmentcentered coding in near and far space , 1998, Memory & cognition.

[8]  D. Elliott,et al.  Hand deviations toward distractors Evidence for response competition , 1999, Experimental Brain Research.

[9]  S. Tipper,et al.  Reaching into cluttered visual environments: spatial and temporal influences of distracting objects. , 1998, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[10]  S. Tipper,et al.  Behavioral consequences of selection from neural population codes. , 2000 .

[11]  J. Adam.  Manipulating the spatial arrangement of stimuli in a precuing task. , 1994, Acta psychologica.

[12]  S. Chieffi,et al.  Visual illusion and action , 1996, Neuropsychologia.

[13]  M. Posner.  Foundations of cognitive science , 1989 .

[14]  Steven P. Tipper,et al.  Visual search and target-directed action , 1999 .

[15]  C. Gross,et al.  Spatial maps for the control of movement , 1998, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

[16]  J. Adam,et al.  Distractor effects on pointing: the role of spatial layout , 2001, Experimental Brain Research.

[17]  F. Paas,et al.  Effects of age on performance in a finger-precuing task. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[18]  Jos J. Adam,et al.  Interference between saccadic eye and goal-directed hand movements , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.

[19]  R A Abrams,et al.  Optimality in human motor performance: ideal control of rapid aimed movements. , 1988, Psychological review.

[20]  G. Logan.  The CODE theory of visual attention: an integration of space-based and object-based attention. , 1996, Psychological review.

[21]  S. Tipper,et al.  Behavioural Goals Determine Inhibitory Mechanisms of Selective Attention , 1994 .

[22]  Ivan Toni,et al.  Eye position tunes the contribution of allocentric and egocentric information to target localization in human goal-directed arm movements , 1997, Neuroscience Letters.

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

[24]  G. Baylis,et al.  Selective attention in a reaching task: effect of normal aging and Alzheimer's disease. , 1997, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

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

[27]  C. Eriksen,et al.  Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task , 1974 .

[28]  Jeff F. Miller.  The flanker compatibility effect as a function of visual angle, attentional focus, visual transients, and perceptual load: A search for boundary conditions , 1991, Perception & psychophysics.

[29]  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.

[30]  J. Duncan.  Selective attention and the organization of visual information. , 1984, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[31]  S. Tipper,et al.  Reaching affects saccade trajectories , 2000, Experimental Brain Research.

[32]  Melvyn A Goodale,et al.  Independent effects of pictorial displays on perception and action , 2000, Vision Research.

[33]  M. Fahle,et al.  Grasping Visual Illusions: No Evidence for a Dissociation Between Perception and Action , 2000, Psychological science.