Spatial action-effect binding

Kirsch, Wladimir; Pfister, Roland; Kunde, Wilfried

doi:10.3758/s13414-015-0997-z

Cited by 32 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Recent studies have shown that, in a basic cursor‐control task, the perceived position of the hand (cursor) is attracted to the position of the cursor (hand) as mapped onto the same plane of motion (Ladwig et al ., , ; Rand & Heuer, , ; Kirsch et al ., ). We previously found that this perceptual attraction between kinematically related hand and cursor ‘objects’ is consistent with optimal multisensory integration model predictions (Debats et al ., ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…This question is closely related to the question of whether our findings are limited to tool-use tasks or even cursor control, or whether they are generic to any type of systematic relation between two objects. On the one hand, optimal integration across objects might be a process that is dedicated to binding actions with their visual consequences (Reichenbach et al, 2014;Kirsch et al, 2016). Such a 'visuomotor binding' mechanism could serve to enable fast and flexible motor control in visually cluttered environments (Reichenbach et al, 2014).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…That is, the perceived position of the hand (in the horizontal plane) is biased to where the cursor (in the frontal plane) would be if mapped onto the same plane of motion, and vice versa. This effect is observed both when there is a slight discrepancy in the hand and cursor movement directions (Rand & Heuer, , ; Debats et al ., ) and in the movement amplitudes (Ladwig et al ., , ; Kirsch et al ., ). In a recent study, we found that the relative strength of these perceptual attraction biases varies with the relative reliability of unimodal hand and cursor position estimates, consistent with optimal‐integration model predictions (Debats et al ., ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Kinematic cross‐correlation induces sensory integration across separate objects

Debats

Ernst

Heuer

2017

Eur J of Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a basic cursor-control task, the perceived positions of the hand and the cursor are biased towards each other. We recently found that this phenomenon conforms to the reliability-based weighting mechanism of optimal multisensory integration. This indicates that optimal integration is not restricted to sensory signals originating from a single source, as is the prevailing view, but that it also applies to separate objects that are connected by a kinematic relation (i.e. hand and cursor). In the current study, we examined which aspects of the kinematic relation are crucial for eliciting the sensory integration: (i) the cross-correlation between kinematic variables of the hand and cursor trajectories, and/or (ii) an internal model of the hand-cursor kinematic transformation. Participants made out-and-back movements from the centre of a semicircular workspace to its boundary, after which they judged the position where either their hand or the cursor hit the boundary. We analysed the position biases and found that the integration was strong in a condition with high kinematic correlations (a straight hand trajectory was mapped to a straight cursor trajectory), that it was significantly reduced for reduced kinematic correlations (a straight hand trajectory was transformed into a curved cursor trajectory) and that it was not affected by the inability to acquire an internal model of the kinematic transformation (i.e. by the trial-to-trial variability of the cursor curvature). These findings support the idea that correlations play a crucial role in multisensory integration irrespective of the number of sensory sources involved.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Kinematic cross‐correlation induces sensory integration across separate objects

Debats

Ernst

Heuer

2017

Eur J of Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…According to recent evidence on ''visuomotor binding,'' visual information related to action effects such as cursor motions is processed differently than exafferent visual information that is unrelated to hand movements (Reichenbach & Diedrichsen, 2015;Reichenbach, Franklin, Zatka-Haas, & Diedrichsen, 2014). Other studies have shown that the functional link between hand and cursor movements comes with systematic perceptual biases of the perceived hand position toward the cursor position, and of perceived cursor position toward the hand position (e.g., Kirsch, Pfister, & Kunde, 2016;Ladwig, Sutter, & Müsseler, 2012, 2013Rand & Heuer, 2013. These biases scale with the relative reliabilities of the unimodal hand and cursor position estimates, consistent with the reliability-based-weighting mechanism of optimal multisensory integration (Debats, Ernst, & Heuer, 2017b).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sensory integration of movements and their visual effects is not enhanced by spatial proximity

Debats

Heuer

2018

Journal of Vision

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Spatial proximity enhances the sensory integration of exafferent position information, likely because it indicates whether the information comes from a single physical source. Does spatial proximity also affect the integration of position information regarding an action (here a hand movement) with that of its visual effect (here a cursor motion), that is, when the sensory information comes from physically distinct objects? In this study, participants made out-and-back hand movements whereby the outward movements were accompanied by corresponding cursor motions on a monitor. Their subsequent judgments of hand or cursor movement endpoints are typically biased toward each other, consistent with an underlying optimal integration mechanism. To study the effect of spatial proximity, we presented the hand and cursor either in orthogonal planes (horizontal and frontal, respectively) or we aligned them in the horizontal plane. We did not find the expected enhanced integration strength in the latter spatial condition. As a secondary question we asked whether spatial transformations required for the position judgments (i.e., horizontal to frontal or vice versa) could be the origin of previously observed suboptimal variances of the integrated hand and cursor position judgments. We found, however, that the suboptimality persisted when spatial transformations were omitted (i.e., with the hand and cursor in the same plane). Our findings thus clearly show that the integration of actions with their visual effects is, at least for cursor control, independent of spatial proximity.

show abstract

“…Accordingly, the same effect can also be potentially predicted based on cross-modal research (e.g., [24]; cf. also [25]): sensory integration of the posture with the visual object information can here be expressed in a bias towards the haptic signal (see also [26]). Please note, however, that the logic in respect to the present question of interest is clear and straight forward irrespective of the exact origin of the expected effect.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are Effects of Action on Perception Real? Evidence from Transformed Movements

2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It has been argued that several reported non-visual influences on perception cannot be truly perceptual. If they were, they should affect the perception of target objects and reference objects used to express perceptual judgments, and thus cancel each other out. This reasoning presumes that non-visual manipulations impact target objects and comparison objects equally. In the present study we show that equalizing a body-related manipulation between target objects and reference objects essentially abolishes the impact of that manipulation so as it should do when that manipulation actually altered perception. Moreover, the manipulation has an impact on judgements when applied to only the target object but not to the reference object, and that impact reverses when only applied to the reference object but not to the target object. A perceptual explanation predicts this reversal, whereas explanations in terms of post-perceptual response biases or demand effects do not. Altogether these results suggest that body-related influences on perception cannot as a whole be attributed to extra-perceptual factors.

show abstract

Spatial action-effect binding

Cited by 32 publications

References 31 publications

Kinematic cross‐correlation induces sensory integration across separate objects

Kinematic cross‐correlation induces sensory integration across separate objects

Sensory integration of movements and their visual effects is not enhanced by spatial proximity

Are Effects of Action on Perception Real? Evidence from Transformed Movements

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About