Memory delay and haptic feedback influence the dissociation of tactile cues for perception and action

The somatosensory processing model (SPM) asserts that dissociable cortical processing streams mediate tactile perceptions and actions via relative and absolute cues, respectively (Dijkerman and de Haan, 2007). Accordingly, we sought to determine whether the introduction of a memory delay and/or physically touching a target object (i.e., haptic feedback) differentially influences the cues supporting tactile perceptions and actions. Participants used their right hand to manually estimate (i.e., perceptual task) or grasp (i.e., action task) differently sized objects placed on the palm of their left limb in conditions wherein the target object was available for the duration of the response (i.e., closed-loop condition), or was removed prior to response cuing (i.e., memory-guided condition). As well, trials were performed in conditions wherein the physical object was available (i.e., haptic feedback) or unavailable (i.e., no haptic feedback) to touch. Notably, we computed just-noticeable-difference (JND) scores to determine whether the aforementioned tasks and conditions adhered to - or violated - the relative properties of Weber's law. JNDs for manual estimations adhered to Weber's law across each condition - a finding supporting the SPM's contention that an immutable and relative percept supports tactile perceptions. In turn, JNDs for grasping violated Weber's law only when haptic feedback was available. Such a finding indicates that haptic feedback supports the absolute calibration between a tactile defined object and the required motor output. What is more, our study highlights that multiple somatosensory cues (i.e., tactile and haptic) support goal-directed grasping.

[1]  S. Vogt,et al.  Vision of the hand and environmental context in human prehension , 2000, Experimental Brain Research.

[2]  A. Milner,et al.  The Magic Grasp: Motor Expertise in Deception , 2011, PloS one.

[3]  E. Haan,et al.  A double dissociation between somatosensory processing for perception and action , 2009, Neuropsychologia.

[4]  T. Ganel,et al.  Response: When does grasping escape Weber's law? , 2008, Current Biology.

[5]  M. Heath,et al.  Goal-directed grasping: The dimensional properties of an object influence the nature of the visual information mediating aperture shaping , 2013, Brain and Cognition.

[6]  D. Elliott,et al.  The Influence of Premovement Visual Information on Manual Aiming , 1987, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[7]  M. Heath Role of limb and target vision in the online control of memory-guided reaches. , 2005, Motor control.

[8]  M. Goodale,et al.  The effects of delay on the kinematics of grasping , 1999, Experimental Brain Research.

[9]  E. Brenner,et al.  A new view on grasping. , 1999, Motor control.

[10]  Matthew Heath,et al.  Grasping time does not influence the early adherence of aperture shaping to Weber's law , 2012, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[11]  M. Lemay,et al.  A distance effect in a manual aiming task to remembered targets: a test of three hypotheses , 2001, Experimental Brain Research.

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

[13]  Benjamin Wallace,et al.  Dual Prism Adaptation: Calibration or Alignment? , 2003, Journal of motor behavior.

[14]  D H Brainard,et al.  The Psychophysics Toolbox. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[15]  V. Gullapalli,et al.  Visual Information and Object Size in the Control of Reaching. , 1996, Journal of motor behavior.

[16]  Matthew Heath,et al.  Memory-Guided Reaching: What the Visuomotor System Knows and How Long It Knows It , 2010 .

[17]  R. Klatzky,et al.  Haptic perception: A tutorial , 2009, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

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

[19]  F Michel,et al.  Localization without content. A tactile analogue of 'blind sight'. , 1983, Archives of neurology.

[20]  M. Heath,et al.  Can the motor system resolve a premovement bias in grip aperture? Online analysis of grasping the Müller-Lyer illusion , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.

[21]  H. C. Dijkerman,et al.  Somatosensory processes subserving perception and action , 2007, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[22]  L. Jakobson,et al.  Differences in the visual control of pantomimed and natural grasping movements , 1994, Neuropsychologia.

[23]  M. Heath,et al.  Weber’s law in tactile grasping and manual estimation: Feedback-dependent evidence for functionally distinct processing streams , 2014, Brain and Cognition.

[24]  M. Laubach,et al.  Cortical ensemble activity increasingly predicts behaviour outcomes during learning of a motor task , 2022 .

[25]  G. Buckingham,et al.  Reframing the action and perception dissociation in DF: haptics matters, but how? , 2013, Journal of neurophysiology.

[26]  R. Held,et al.  Adaptation of Disarranged Hand-Eye Coordination Contingent upon Re-Afferent Stimulation , 1958 .

[27]  G. Cumming,et al.  Inference by eye: confidence intervals and how to read pictures of data. , 2005, The American psychologist.

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

[29]  E. Pedhazur Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research: Explanation and Prediction , 1982 .

[30]  Melvyn A. Goodale,et al.  DF's visual brain in action: The role of tactile cues , 2014, Neuropsychologia.

[31]  Thomas Schenk,et al.  No Dissociation between Perception and Action in Patient DF When Haptic Feedback is Withdrawn , 2012, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[32]  Romeo Chua,et al.  Goal-Directed Aiming: Correcting a Force-Specification Error With the Right and Left Hands. , 1999, Journal of motor behavior.

[33]  Melvyn A. Goodale,et al.  Does grasping in patient D.F. depend on vision? , 2012, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[34]  M. Heath,et al.  Distinct Visual Cues Mediate Aperture Shaping for Grasping and Pantomime-Grasping Tasks , 2013, Journal of motor behavior.

[35]  Tzvi Ganel,et al.  Visual coding for action violates fundamental psychophysical principles , 2008, Current Biology.

[36]  H. Bülthoff,et al.  Merging the senses into a robust percept , 2004, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[37]  A. Wing,et al.  Grasp size and accuracy of approach in reaching. , 1986, Journal of motor behavior.

[38]  M. Masson,et al.  Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs , 1994, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[39]  M. Heath,et al.  Visually and memory-guided grasping: Aperture shaping exhibits a time-dependent scaling to Weber’s law , 2011, Vision Research.

[40]  Thomas Schenk,et al.  Response to Milner et al.: Grasping uses vision and haptic feedback , 2012, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[41]  Charles E. Pettypiece,et al.  Differential effects of delay upon visually and haptically guided grasping and perceptual judgments , 2009, Experimental Brain Research.

[42]  M. Goodale,et al.  Perceptual illusion and the real-time control of action. , 2003, Spatial vision.

[43]  Matthew Heath,et al.  The effect of a pictorial illusion on closed-loop and open-loop prehension , 2000, Experimental Brain Research.

[44]  M. Goodale Transforming vision into action , 2011, Vision Research.

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

[46]  M. Goodale,et al.  Sight Unseen: An Exploration of Conscious and Unconscious Vision , 2004 .

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