Is the manual following response an attempt to compensate for inferred self-motion?

Slightly perturbing the arm influences choices between multiple targets

We constantly make choices about how to interact with objects in the environment. Do we immediately consider changes in our posture when making such choices? To find out, we examined whether motion in the background, which is known to influence the trajectory of goal-directed hand movements, influences participants' choices when suddenly faced with two options. The participants' task was to tap on as many sequentially presented targets as possible within 90 seconds. Sometime after a new target appeared, it split into two targets and participants had to choose which of them to hit. Shortly before the split, the background moved in a way that was expected to result in the finger shifting slightly towards one of the two new targets. We examined whether such shifts influenced the choice between the two targets. The moving background influenced the finger movements in the expected manner: participants moved in the direction of the background motion. It also influenced the choice that participants made between the two targets: participants more frequently chose the target in the direction of the background motion. There was a positive correlation across participants between the magnitude of the response to background motion and the bias to choose the target in the direction of such motion. Thus, people consider sudden changes in their posture when choosing between different movement options.

Body and visual instabilities functionally modulate implicit reaching corrections

Hierarchical brain-information-processing schemes have frequently assumed that the flexible but slow voluntary action modulates a direct sensorimotor process that can quickly generate a reaction in dynamical interaction. Here we show that the quick visuomotor process for manual movement is modulated by postural and visual instability contexts that are related but remote and prior states to manual movements. A preceding unstable postural context significantly enhanced the reflexive manual response induced by a large-field visual motion during hand reaching while the response was evidently weakened by imposing a preceding random-visual-motion context. These modulations are successfully explained by the Bayesian optimal formulation in which the manual response elicited by visual motion is ascribed to the compensatory response to the estimated self-motion affected by the preceding contextual situations. Our findings suggest an implicit and functional mechanism that links the variability and uncertainty of remote states to the quick sensorimotor transformation.

How similar are responses to background motion and target displacements?

When making a goal-directed movement towards a target, our hand follows abrupt background motion. This response resembles that of a shift in the target’s position. Does background motion simply change the position towards which the movement is guided? If so, the response to background motion should resemble the response to a target displacement. To find out whether this is the case, we ran two exploratory studies where we asked participants to hit a moving target at a specified moment. At various times during the hand’s movement, the background could move briefly at one of several speeds, and for various durations. The response to abrupt background motion was larger when the background moved later in the movement and when the background moved faster, in line with known responses to target displacements. The response to a second epoch of background motion was smaller than it would have been if there had been no first epoch, in contrast to responses to multiple target displacements. If the background was already moving before the target appeared, the hand even moved in the opposite direction. Thus, the response to background motion and that to a target displacement are clearly not identical, but they do share several features.

Hand movements respond to any motion near the endpoint

Hand movements are pulled in the direction of motion near their planned endpoints. Is this an automatic response to motion signals near those positions, or do we consider what is moving? To find out, we asked participants to hit a target that moved rightward across a patterned surface when it reached an interception zone that was indicated by a circle. The circle was initially at the center of a square. The square was either filled, occluding the patterned surface (tile), or open, such that the patterned surface was not occluded (frame). The square briefly moved leftward or rightward shortly after the target appeared. Thus, participants were either aiming to hit the target on the surface that moved (the tile) or to hit the target on the patterned surface that did not move. Moving the two types of squares produced very similar local motion signals, but for the tile this could be interpreted as motion of an extended surface, while for the frame it could not. Motion onset of the two types of squares yielded very similar responses. Increasing the size of the square, and thus the eccentricity of the local motion signal, reduced the magnitude of the response. Since this reduction was seen for both types of squares, the surface on which the interception zone was presented was clearly not considered. We conclude that the response is driven by local motion signals near the endpoint of the action without considering whether the local surface is moving.

The response to background motion: Characteristics of a movement stabilization mechanism

When making goal-directed movements toward a target, our hand deviates from its path in the direction of sudden background motion. We propose that this manual following response arises because ongoing movements are constantly guided toward the planned movement endpoint. Such guidance is needed to compensate for modest, unexpected self-motion. Our proposal is that the compensation for such self-motion does not involve a sophisticated analysis of the global optic flow. Instead, we propose that any motion in the vicinity of the planned endpoint is attributed to the endpoint's egocentric position having shifted in the direction of the motion. The ongoing movement is then stabilized relative to the shifted endpoint. In six experiments, we investigate what aspects of motion determine this shift of planned endpoint. We asked participants to intercept a moving target when it reached a certain area. During the target's motion, background structures briefly moved either leftward or rightward. Participants’ hands responded to background motion even when each background structure was only briefly visible or when the vast majority of background structures remained static. The response was not restricted to motion along the target's path but was most sensitive to motion close to where the target was to be hit, both in the visual field and in depth. In this way, a movement stabilization mechanism provides a comprehensive explanation of many aspects of the manual following response.

Contribution of Retinal Motion to the Impulse Control of Target-Directed Aiming

Contemporary models of sensorimotor control contend that visually regulated movement adjustments may unfold early during a target-directed limb movement through an impulse control process that makes use of anticipatory forward models. To date, evidence surrounding impulse control has involved adjustments to a purported misperception in limb velocity following the unexpected onset of a moving background. That is, the limb is perceived to move faster and undershoots more when there is an incongruent moving background and vice versa. However, this particular behavior may manifest from an independent oculo-manual-following response. The present study aimed to deconstruct these proposals and, with them, the processes that underlie impulse control. Participants had to rapidly reach upward to land their index finger accurately on a target. On 33% of trials, the background, over which the movement was made, moved either up, down, right, or left. Displacements in the primary and perpendicular directions of movement showed spatial trajectories that were consistent with the directions of the moving backgrounds. This behavior was most prevalent in measurements taken at the movements’ peak negative acceleration and endpoints. Moreover, analysis of standardized displacements in the moving background conditions indicated no significant differences in the extent of the movements toward each of the moving backgrounds. These findings indicate that movement adjustments can manifest from an oculo-manual-following response rather than a misperception of limb velocity. We suggest that the anticipatory forward model that comprises impulse control may incorporate features of the environment that surround the vicinity of the limb.