Seeing all the obstacles in your way: the effect of visual feedback and visual feedback schedule on obstacle avoidance while reaching

Human reaching behaviour displays sophisticated obstacle avoidance. Recently, we demonstrated that the obstacle avoidance system in normal participants is sensitive to both the position and size of obstacles (Chapman and Goodale in Exp Brain Res 191:83–97, 2008). A limitation in this previous study was that reaches were performed without visual feedback, and were not made to a specific target (i.e. the target was a long strip instead of a point). Many studies have shown that both the introduction of visual feedback and the order in which the feedback is presented (visual feedback schedule) significantly alter performance in simple visuomotor tasks (Zelaznik et al. in J Mot Behav 15:217–236, 1983). Thus, the present study was designed to compare obstacle avoidance when reaches were made to a discrete target with vision (V) and with no vision (NV) under different three visual feedback schedules (blocked, random, and alternating). Twenty-four right-handed participants performed reaches in the presence of one, two, or no obstacles placed mid-reach. In addition to replicating previous work with reaching without vision, we showed that robust avoidance behaviour occurred when reaches were made to a specific target, when reaching with only one object present, and, critically, when vision of the hand was available during the reach. Moreover, the visual feedback schedule also had a significant effect on several kinematic measures—but only on the NV trials. That is, regardless of its predictability or recent availability, vision was used in the same way for all reaches. In contrast, performance on blocked-NV trials was markedly different from performance on NV trials presented under random or alternating schedules. In addition to extending our understanding of obstacle avoidance during reaching, our results suggest that, in a complex and more natural reach-to-point task, the human visuomotor system is optimized to use visual feedback.

[1]  James L. Lyons,et al.  Optimal Control Strategies Under Different Feedback Schedules: Kinematic Evidence , 2002, Journal of motor behavior.

[2]  Steven A. Jax,et al.  The problem of serial order in behavior: Lashley's legacy. , 2007, Human movement science.

[3]  D Elliott,et al.  Optimizing the use of Vision in Manual Aiming: The Role of Practice , 1995, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[4]  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.

[5]  Glyn W. Humphreys,et al.  Delay abolishes the obstacle avoidance deficit in unilateral optic ataxia , 2008, Neuropsychologia.

[6]  Peter Dixon,et al.  Action and Memory , 2004 .

[7]  Glyn W. Humphreys,et al.  Attention in Action: Advances from Cognitive Neuroscience , 1984 .

[8]  Lorraine G. Kisselburgh,et al.  Rapid visual feedback processing in single-aiming movements. , 1983, Journal of motor behavior.

[9]  Jonathan Vaughan,et al.  The posture-based motion planning framework: new findings related to object manipulation, moving around obstacles, moving in three spatial dimensions, and haptic tracking. , 2009, Advances in experimental medicine and biology.

[10]  W. Helsen,et al.  A century later: Woodworth's (1899) two-component model of goal-directed aiming. , 2001, Psychological bulletin.

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

[12]  D. Rosenbaum,et al.  Hand path priming in manual obstacle avoidance: evidence that the dorsal stream does not only control visually guided actions in real time. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[13]  Melvyn A. Goodale,et al.  Missing in action: the effect of obstacle position and size on avoidance while reaching , 2008, Experimental Brain Research.

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

[15]  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.

[16]  Matthew Heath,et al.  The control of memory-guided reaching movements in peripersonal space. , 2004, Motor control.

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

[18]  Matthew Heath,et al.  The control of goal-directed limb movements: Correcting errors in the trajectory , 1999 .

[19]  D. Rosenbaum,et al.  Hand path priming in manual obstacle avoidance: Rapid decay of dorsal stream information , 2009, Neuropsychologia.

[20]  J. Kalaska,et al.  Comparison of variability of initial kinematics and endpoints of reaching movements , 1999, Experimental Brain Research.

[21]  Romeo Chua,et al.  Discrete vs. continuous visual control of manual aiming , 1991 .

[22]  Gavin P. Lawrence,et al.  Inferring online and offline processing of visual feedback in target-directed movements from kinematic data , 2006, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews.

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

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

[25]  D. Elliott,et al.  The Utilization of Visual Feedback Information during Rapid Pointing Movements , 1985, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

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

[27]  M. Heath,et al.  Visual feedback schedules influence visuomotor resistance to the Müller-Lyer figures , 2005, Experimental Brain Research.

[28]  M. A. Goodale,et al.  Factors affecting higher-order movement planning: a kinematic analysis of human prehension , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.

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

[30]  D. Elliott,et al.  Visual regulation of manual aiming , 1993 .

[31]  Melvyn A. Goodale,et al.  Grasping future events: explicit knowledge of the availability of visual feedback fails to reliably influence prehension , 2008, Experimental Brain Research.

[32]  Matthew Heath,et al.  Goal-directed reaching: movement strategies influence the weighting of allocentric and egocentric visual cues , 2008, Experimental Brain Research.

[33]  Heiner Deubel,et al.  Attentional selection in sequential manual movements, movements around an obstacle and in grasping , 2005 .

[34]  Melvyn A. Goodale,et al.  Updating the programming of a precision grip is a function of recent history of available feedback , 2009, Experimental Brain Research.

[35]  Toshio Inui,et al.  The effect of viewing the moving limb and target object during the early phase of movement on the online control of grasping. , 2006, Human movement science.

[36]  Steven A. Jax,et al.  Hand path priming in manual obstacle avoidance: evidence for abstract spatiotemporal forms in human motor control. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

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