Hand effects on mentally simulated reaching

Movement imagery as a predictor of online control in typically developing children

The ability to mentally represent actions is suggested to play a role in the online control of movement in healthy adults. Children's movement imagery ability and online control have been shown to develop at similar nonlinear rates. The current study investigated the relationship between movement imagery and online control in children by comparing implicit and explicit movement imagery measures with the ability to make online trajectory corrections. Imagery ability was a significant predictor of children's online control of movement once general reaching efficiency was controlled for. These findings extend the proposed relationship between movement imagery and online control.

Evidence for the embodiment of space perception: concurrent hand but not arm action moderates reachability and egocentric distance perception

The perception of reachability (i.e., whether an object is within reach) relies on body representations and action simulation. Similarly, egocentric distance estimation (i.e., the perception of the distance an object is from the self) is thought to be partly derived from embodied action simulation. Although motor simulation is important for both, it is unclear whether the cognitive processes underlying these behaviors rely on the same motor processes. To investigate this, we measured the impact of a motor interference dual-task paradigm on reachability judgment and egocentric distance estimation, while allocentric length estimation (i.e., how distant two stimuli are from each other independent from the self) was used as a control task. Participants were required to make concurrent actions with either hand actions of foam ball grip squeezing or arm actions of weight lifting, or no concurrent actions. Results showed that concurrent squeeze actions significantly slowed response speed in the reachability judgment and egocentric distance estimation tasks, but that there was no impact of the concurrent actions on allocentric length estimation. Together, these results suggest that reachability and distance perception, both egocentric perspective tasks, and in contrast to the allocentric perspective task, involve action simulation cognitive processes. The results are discussed in terms of the implication of action simulation when evaluating the position of a target relative to the observer's body, supporting an embodied view of spatial cognition.

Does target viewing time influence perceived reachability?

This study examined the influence of target viewing time on perceived (estimates of) reachability. Right-handed participants were asked to judge the simulated reachability of midline targets using their dominant limb in viewing conditions of 150 ms, 500 ms, 1 s and 2 s. Responses were compared to actual maximum reach. In reference to percent error, interestingly, the 150 ms condition revealed the least error at peripersonal targets and the most inaccuracy with distal (extrapersonal) targets. This condition was also distinct with a significant overestimation bias -- a common observation in earlier studies. However, with increasing viewing time this bias was reduced. These data provide evidence that 150 ms is effective for estimating reach within one's general peripersonal workspace. However, with judgments distal from that point, more time enhanced accuracy, with 500 ms and 1 s being optimal. Overall results are discussed relative to perceptual effectiveness in programming reaching movements.

Examining the effects of postural constraints on estimating reach

The tendency to overestimate has consistently been reported in studies of reachability estimation. According to one of the more prominent explanations, the postural stability hypothesis, the perceived reaching limit depends on the individual's perceived postural constraints. To test that proposition, the authors compared estimates of reachability of 38 adults (a) in the seated posture (P1) and (b) in the more demanding posture of standing on one foot and leaning forward (P2). Although there was no difference between conditions for total error, results for the distribution and direction of error indicated that participants overestimated in the P1 condition and underestimated in the P2 condition. It therefore appears that perceived postural constraints could be a factor in judgments of reachability. When participants in the present study perceived greater postural demands, they may have elected to program a more conservative strategy that resulted in underestimation.

The effects of movement direction and hemispace on estimates of distance traveled

BACKGROUND/HYPOTHESIS

The degree of attention directed to a stimulus and the presence of anisometric representations can alter the perception of the magnitude of a stimulus. We wanted to learn if normal right-handed subjects' estimates of distance traveled are influenced by the right-left direction or hemispace of movements.

METHODS

We had blindfolded participants estimate the distance their arm was moved in a rightward or leftward direction, in right and left hemispace. Since we wanted subjects to estimate the distance traveled rather than compute the distance between the start and finish points, the subjects' arms were passively moved in sinusoidal trajectories at a constant speed.

RESULTS

Subjects estimated leftward movements as longer than rightward movements, but there was no effect of hemispace. COMMENTS/CONCLUSIONS: People often attend more to novel than routine conditions and therefore participants might have overestimated the distance associated with leftward versus rightward movement because right-handed people more frequently move their right hand in a rightward direction and learn to read and write using rightward movements. Thus, leftward movements might be more novel and more attended than rightward movements and this enhanced directional attention might have influenced estimates of magnitude (distance).

Perceived Reachability in Single- and Multiple-Degree-of-Freedom Workspaces

In comparisons of perceived (imagined) and actual reaches, investigators consistently find a tendency to overestimate. A primary explanation for that phenomenon is that individuals reach as a "whole-body engagement" involving multiple degrees of freedom (m-df). The authors examined right-handers (N = 28) in 1-df and m-df workspaces by having them judge the reachability of targets at midline, right, and left visual fields. Response profiles were similar for total error. Both conditions reflected an overestimation bias, although the bias was significantly greater in the m-df condition. Midline responses differed (greater overestimation) from those of right and left visual fields, which were similar. Although the authors would have predicted better performance in the m-df condition, it seems plausible that if individuals think in terms of m-df, they may feel more confident in that condition and thereby exhibit greater overestimation. Furthermore, the authors speculate that the reduced bias at the side fields may be attributed to a more conservative strategy based in part on perceived reach constraints.