The development and learning of the visual control of movement: An ecological perspective

Abstract

We compare development and learning of the visual control of movement from an ecological perspective. It is argued that although the constraints that are imposed upon development and learning are vastly different, both are best characterised as a change towards the use of more useful and specifying optic variables. Implicit learning, in which awareness is drawn away from movement execution, is most appropriate to accomplish this change in optic variable use, although its contribution in development is more contentious. Alternatively, learning can also be affected by explicit processes. We propose that explicit learning would typically invoke vision for perception processes instead of the designated vision for action processes. It is for that reason that after explicit learning performance is more easily compromised in the face of pressure or disorders. We present a way to deal with the issue of explicit learning during infancy.

Examination of gaze behaviors under in situ and video simulation task constraints reveals differences in information pickup for perception and action

“…Neo-Gibsonian empiricists (e.g., Michaels, 2000;van der Kamp, Oudejans, & Savelsbergh, 2003;van Doorn, van der Kamp, & Savelsbergh, 2007) proposed that, when studied in separation, the different functional demands of perception and action may predicate the pickup of different sources of visual information. Recently, van Doorn, van der Kamp, de Wit, and Savelsbergh (2009) used the Müller-Lyer illusion to compare gaze behaviors when participants were required to estimate the perceived length of a shaft or when participants were instructed to grasp the shaft.…”

Attentional Processes in Skill Learning and Expert Performance

“…In particular, both distinctions are associated with different degrees of conscious awareness and involvement of (working) memory. This has led some (e.g., van der Kamp, Savelsbergh, & Oudejans, 2003) to hypothesize that implicit learning may chiefly involve engagement of the dorsal visual pathway, whereas explicit learning may also engage the ventral visual pathway, especially early in skill learning. There is some experimental evidence to support this contention.…”

“…The dedicated dorsal pathway would be fully responsible for control only after the action had become highly automatized (see Milner & Goodale, 1995). In such a scenario, learning would be characterized not only by a declining awareness of the movement during execution, but also by a concurrent change in guidance from allocentric to egocentric information (van der Kamp et al, 2003;Willingham, 1998). For example, actions may become progressively less susceptible to visual illusions.…”

“…In this respect, it is noticeable that the highly automatized actions of grasping and reaching appear much less sensitive to illusions than hopping, which is arguably a less commonly performed action (Glover & Dixon, 2004). In these terms, implicit skill learning would be typified as a direct tuning of the dorsal pathway (Willingham, 1998), thereby reducing intervention by the ventral pathway (van der Kamp et al, 2003). It follows that if the goal is to enhance the learning of visuomotor control, approaches involving implicit rather than explicit learning may be beneficial because such approaches are more likely to invoke the essential dorsal pathways and minimize ventral pathway interference.…”

Interception in the presence of ball-swing: exploring the development of visual-motor expertise in cricket batting

“…Critically, both the ventral and dorsal streams are organised in a parallel, but integrated manner when promoting successful interception. Although empirical evidence is needed, it is speculated that novices may rely more so on the ventral stream to ensure movement execution, whereas experts are better able to utilise the dorsal stream as movement control becomes highly automatized (Abernethy, Maxwell, Masters, van der Kamp, & Jackson, 2007; van der Kamp, Oudejans, & Savelsbergh, 2003).…”