Perceived reachability in hemispace

A common observation in studies of perceived (imagined) compared to actual movement in a reaching paradigm is the tendency to overestimate. Of the studies noted, reaching tasks have been presented in the general midline range. In the present study, strong right-handers were asked to judge the reachability of visual targets projected onto a table surface at midline, right- (RVF), and left-visual fields (LVF). Midline results support those of previous studies, showing an overestimation bias. In contrast, participants revealed the tendency to underestimate their reachability in RVF and LVF. These findings are discussed from the perspective of actor 'confidence' (a cognitive state) possibly associated with visual information, perceived ability, and perceived task demands.

[1]  Reinoud J. Bootsma,et al.  The Effects of Anxiety on Perceiving the Reachability of Passing Objects , 1992 .

[2]  Michael G. Lacourse,et al.  Event-related potentials as a function of movement parameter variations during motor imagery and isometric action , 2000, Behavioural Brain Research.

[3]  Michael S Gazzaniga,et al.  Within grasp but out of reach: evidence for a double dissociation between imagined hand and arm movements in the left cerebral hemisphere , 2001, Neuropsychologia.

[4]  J. Decety.  The neurophysiological basis of motor imagery , 1996, Behavioural Brain Research.

[5]  P. Rochat,et al.  An account of the systematic error in judging what is reachable. , 1997, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[6]  Simon J Watt,et al.  Binocular cues are important in controlling the grasp but not the reach in natural prehension movements , 2000, Neuropsychologia.

[7]  S. Robinovitch,et al.  Perception of postural limits during reaching. , 1998, Journal of motor behavior.

[8]  S. Jackson,et al.  A Kinematic Analysis of Goal-directed Prehension Movements Executed under Binocular, Monocular, and Memory-guided Viewing Conditions , 1997 .

[9]  Heft Harry,et al.  A Methodological Note on Overestimates of Reaching Distance: Distinguishing Between Perceptual and Analytical Judgments , 1993 .

[10]  Melvyn A. Goodale,et al.  The role of binocular vision in prehension: a kinematic analysis , 1992, Vision Research.

[11]  P. Maruff,et al.  Asymmetries between dominant and non-dominanthands in real and imagined motor task performance , 1999, Neuropsychologia.

[12]  Mark L Latash,et al.  Effects of motor imagery on finger force responses to transcranial magnetic stimulation. , 2004, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[13]  M. H. Fischer,et al.  Estimating reachability: Whole body engagement or postural stability? , 2000 .

[14]  Jinsung Wang,et al.  Coordination among the body segments during reach-to-grasp action involving the trunk , 1998, Experimental Brain Research.

[15]  M. Turvey,et al.  Visually perceiving what is reachable. , 1989 .

[16]  L. S. Mark,et al.  Postural dynamics and the preferred critical boundary for visually guided reaching. , 1997, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance.

[17]  S. H. Johnson,et al.  Thinking ahead: the case for motor imagery in prospective judgements of prehension , 2000, Cognition.

[18]  M. Jeannerod.  Mental imagery in the motor context , 1995, Neuropsychologia.

[19]  M. Erb,et al.  Activation of Cortical and Cerebellar Motor Areas during Executed and Imagined Hand Movements: An fMRI Study , 1999, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[20]  S. Watt,et al.  Binocular vision and prehension in middle childhood , 2003, Neuropsychologia.

[21]  P Baraldi,et al.  Ipsilateral involvement of primary motor cortex during motor imagery , 2000, The European journal of neuroscience.

[22]  D. Brunt,et al.  Effects of trunk support and target distance on postural adjustments prior to a rapid reaching task by seated subjects. , 1991, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[23]  Magdalena Sabaté,et al.  Brain lateralization of motor imagery: motor planning asymmetry as a cause of movement lateralization , 2004, Neuropsychologia.

[24]  M. A. Goodale,et al.  The removal of binocular cues disrupts the calibration of grasping in patients with visual form agnosia , 1997, Experimental Brain Research.

[25]  S Ma,et al.  Two functionally different synergies during arm reaching movements involving the trunk. , 1995, Journal of neurophysiology.

[26]  H. Sakata,et al.  Neural representation of three-dimensional features of manipulation objects with stereopsis , 1999, Experimental Brain Research.

[27]  S. Coren.  The lateral preference inventory for measurement of handedness, footedness, eyedness, and earedness: Norms for young adults , 1993 .