Phenomenal versus process explanations of prism aftereffects.

The phenomenal hypothesis that prism aftereffects depend upon sight of the limb was tested in a ball-throwing task during prism exposure; the participant's (N = 28) limb was either visible or not visible, but feedback from the moving ball was available during the exposure. Aftereffects were clearly demonstrated in both the visible- and nonvisible-limb conditions, and total aftereffect was larger for participants in the nonvisible-limb condition. Proprioceptive aftereffects were greater than visual aftereffects in the visible-limb group; however, the reverse was true for the nonvisible-limb group. Those results support a processing hypothesis in which sensory feedback, not phenomenal experience, is necessary.

[1]  Joel Goldberg,et al.  Immediate correction and adaptation based on viewing a prismatically displaced scene , 1966 .

[2]  J A Kelso,et al.  Allocation of attention and the locus of adaptation to displaced vision. , 1975, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[3]  R B Welch,et al.  Evidence for a three-component model of prism adaptation. , 1974, Journal of experimental psychology.

[4]  M. Jeannerod.  The neural and behavioural organization of goal-directed movements , 1990, Psychological Medicine.

[5]  G. M. Redding,et al.  Head posture effects in prism adaptation during hallway exposure , 1988, Perception & psychophysics.

[6]  R. Welch.  Perceptual modification : adapting to altered sensory environments / Robert B. Welch , 1978 .

[7]  B Wallace,et al.  Adaptive mechanisms in perceptual-motor coordination: components of prism adaptation. , 1988, Journal of motor behavior.

[8]  Gordon M. Redding,et al.  Adaptive Spatial Alignment , 1997 .

[9]  L. K. Canon,et al.  Influence of concurrent and terminal exposure conditions on the nature of perceptual adaptation. , 1971, Journal of experimental psychology.

[10]  D. H. Warren,et al.  Immediate perceptual response to intersensory discrepancy. , 1980, Psychological bulletin.

[11]  G. M. Redding,et al.  Sources of “overadditivity” in prism adaptation , 1978, Perception & psychophysics.

[12]  B Wallace,et al.  Adaptive coordination and alignment of eye and hand. , 1993, Journal of motor behavior.

[13]  B Wallace,et al.  Components of prism adaptation in terminal and concurrent exposure: Organization of the eye-hand coordination loop , 1988, Perception & psychophysics.

[14]  H. Pick,et al.  A Passive Test of the Held Reafference Hypothesis , 1965, Perceptual and motor skills.

[15]  B Wallace,et al.  Effects on prism adaptation of duration and timing of visual feedback during pointing. , 1990, Journal of motor behavior.

[16]  Gordon M. Redding,et al.  Chapter 5 Adaptive Eye-Hand Coordination: Implications of Prism Adaptation for Perceptual-Motor Organization , 1992 .

[17]  P. Churchland.  Neurophilosophy: Toward a unified science of the mind , 1989 .

[18]  B Craske,et al.  No retinal component in prism adaptation. , 1974, Acta psychologica.

[19]  G. M. Redding,et al.  Effects of Pointing Rate and Availability of Visual Feedback on Visual and Proprioceptive Components of Prism Adaptation. , 1992, Journal of motor behavior.

[20]  Robert E. Dewar.  Adaptation to displaced vision: Variations on the “prismatic-shaping” technique , 1971 .

[21]  R B Welch,et al.  An examination of the relationship between visual capture and prism adaptation , 1979, Perception & psychophysics.

[22]  G. M. Redding,et al.  Adaptive spatial alignment and strategic perceptual-motor control. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[23]  B Wallace,et al.  Effects of movement duration and visual feedback on visual and proprioceptive components of prism adaptation. , 1994, Journal of motor behavior.

[24]  R. Held,et al.  PLASTICITY IN HUMAN SENSORIMOTOR CONTROL. , 1963, Science.

[25]  Benjamin Wallace,et al.  An analysis of aftereffects in the measurement of the correction effect , 1973 .