Two experiments were conducted in which participants (N = 12, Experiment 1; N = 12, Experiment 2) performed rapid aiming movements with and without visual feedback under blocked, random, and alternating feedback schedules. Prior knowledge of whether vision would be available had a significant impact on the strategies that participants adopted. When they knew that vision would be available, less time was spent preparing movements before movement initiation. Participants also reached peak deceleration sooner but spent more time after peak deceleration adjusting limb trajectories. Consistent with those findings, analysis of spatial variability at different points in the trajectory indicated that variability increased up to peak deceleration but then decreased from peak deceleration to the end of the movement.

No abstract

In the present research the authors examined the time course of binocular integration in goal-directed aiming and grasping. With liquid-crystal goggles, the authors manipulated vision independently to the right and left eyes of 10 students during movement preparation and movement execution. Contrary to earlier findings reported in catching experiments (I. Olivier, D. J. Weeks, K. L. Ricker, J. Lyons, & D. Elliott, 1998), neither a temporal nor a spatial binocular advantage was obtained in 1 grasping and 2 aiming studies. That result suggests that, at least in some circumstances, monocular vision is sufficient for the precise control of limb movements. In a final aiming experiment involving 3-dimensional spatial variability and no trial-to-trial visual feedback about performance, binocular vision was associated with greater spatial accuracy. Binocular superiority appeared to be most pronounced when participants were unable to adjust their limb control strategy or procedure on the basis of terminal feedback about performance.

The specificity of practice hypothesis was examined using a tracking task. In Experiment 1, visual or auditory feedback about performance was provided. Vision was more useful than audition early in acquisition. Performance gains found in acquisition were maintained during retention, but learning was specific only if the acquisition modality was visual. Specificity did not increase with the amount of practice. In Experiment 2, visual and auditory information were combined. Again, the specificity of practice hypothesis was supported. Also, instructing participants to attend to one information source allowed us to demonstrate that information can be explicitly or implicitly processed. Further, specificity effects may occur because of different rates of development for error detection and correction processes.

The authors investigated the integration of alternate disparate monocular inputs for binocular perception in 1-handed catching experiments (N = 14, 32, 22, and 15 participants, respectively in Experiments 1-4). They varied the no-vision interval between alternate monocular samples to measure catching performance, and they compared the alternating monocular conditions with binocular and monocular conditions with equal no-vision intervals. They found no evidence of a binocular advantage for one-handed catching in the alternating monocular conditions. Performance in monocular and alternating monocular conditions did not differ across no-vision intervals ranging from 0-80 ms and was particularly worse than performance in binocular viewing conditions when the no-vision interval was 40 ms or more. The authors argue that the dissimilarity between disparate monocular inputs created by the approaching object limited the integration of those inputs and subsequent binocular perception.