Rapid Visual Feedback Processing in Single-Aiming Movements

Abstract

A major line of behavioral support for motor-program theory derives from evidence indicating that feedback does not influence the execution and control of limited duration movements. Since feedback cannot be utilized, the motor-program is assumed to act as the controlling agent. in a classic study, Keele and Posner observed that visual feedback had no effect on the accuracy of 190-msec single-aiming movements. Therefore visual feedback processing time is greater than 190 msec, and, more importantly, limited duration movements are governed by motor programs. In the present paper, we observed that visual feedback can affect the spatial accuracy of movement with durations much less than 190 msec. We hypothesize that visual feedback can aid motor control via processes not associated with intermittent error corrections.

To know or not to know: influence of explicit advance knowledge of occlusion on interceptive actions

“…However, while it is clear that the availability of sensory information (e.g., full vision vs. occluded vision) during a trial influences motor behavior, Zelaznik et al (1983) showed that expectancy regarding the upcoming sensory information is an important source of advance information. Zelaznik et al found that when trials are received in blocked order and hence there is a clear expectation regarding the sensory information, aiming movements under a full vision condition were performed with a higher spatial accuracy compared to a visual occlusion condition.…”

Intermittent visual information and the multiple time scales of visual motor control of continuous isometric force production

“…The experiments tend to follow variations of a protocol initiated by Woodworth (1899) with which the minimal movement time that is uninfluenced by the absence or withdrawal of vision is investigated (e.g., Carlton, 1981;Keele & Posner, 1968;Vince, 1948). The estimates of the minimal visualprocessing time have decreased from Woodworth's initial estimate of 400 msec, so that the contemporary position is that it is much less than a visual reaction time and on the order of about 100 msec (Smith & Bowen, 1980;Zelaznik, Hawkins, & Kisselburgh, 1983).…”

Quantifying online visuomotor feedback utilization in the frequency domain

“…Evidence for this assertion has come from the finding that performance is maximized when the availability of visual feedback is scheduled in a blocked manner, as compared to a randomized schedule (i.e., Elliott & Allard, 1985). In addition, both the relative certainty of the availability of feedback (i.e., Zelaznik et al, 1983) and the availability of vision on preceding trials (i.e., Cheng, Luis, & Tremblay, 2008) have been shown to influence endpoint accuracy across reaches. Thus, changes in reaching performance, which could otherwise be erroneously attributed to online feedback utilization, could theoretically come about through offline changes in performance.…”

“…This capacity is exemplified through the use of visual feedback during an ongoing movement (i.e., online control). For example, the use of feedbackrelated processes is apparent through the changes in accuracy brought about by manipulations of visual information after movement onset (e.g., Elliott & Madalena, 1987;Heath, 2005;Keele & Posner, 1968;Woodworth, 1899;Zelaznik, Hawkins, & Kisselburgh, 1983). Although the influence of online feedback-based processes is evident in behavioral outcomes, the quantification of online feedback utilization and the manner in which feedback is utilized have been the subjects of much debate (e.g., Khan et al, 2006).…”