Evidence Supporting the Importance of Peripheral Visual Information for the Directional Control of Aiming Movement

Online control of rapid target-directed aiming using blurred visual feedback

The accuracy and precision of target-directed aiming is contingent upon the availability of online visual feedback. The present study aimed to examine the visual regulation of aiming with blurred vision. The aiming task was executed using a stylus on a graphics digitizing board, which was translated onto a screen in the form of a cursor (representing the moving limb) and target. The vision conditions involved the complete disappearance or blur of the cursor alone, target alone, and cursor+target. These conditions involved leaving the screen uncovered or covering with a diffusing sheet to induce blur. The distance between the screen and sheet was increased to make the blur progressively more severe (0 cm, 3 cm). Results showed significantly less radial and variable error under blurred compared to no vision of the cursor and cursor+target. These findings were corroborated by the movement kinematics including a shorter proportion of time to peak velocity, more negative within-participant correlation between the distances travelled to and after peak velocity, and lower spatial variability from peak velocity to the end of the movement under blurred vision. The superior accuracy and precision under the blurred compared to no vision conditions is consistent with functioning visual regulation of aiming, which is primarily contingent upon the online visual feedback of the moving limb. This outcome may be attributed to the processing of low spatial-high temporal frequencies. Potential implications for low vision diagnostics are discussed.

Going offline: differences in the contributions of movement control processes when reaching in a typical versus novel environment

Human movements are remarkably adaptive. We are capable of completing movements in a novel visuomotor environment with similar accuracy to those performed in a typical environment. In the current study, we examined if the control processes underlying movements under typical conditions were different from those underlying novel visuomotor conditions. 16 participants were divided into two groups, one receiving continuous visual feedback during all reaches (CF), and the other receiving terminal feedback regarding movement endpoint (TF). Participants trained in a virtual environment by completing 150 reaches to three targets when (1) a cursor accurately represented their hand motion (i.e., typical environment) and (2) a cursor was rotated 45° clockwise relative to their hand motion (i.e., novel environment). Analyses of within-trial measures across 150 reaching trials revealed that participants were able to demonstrate similar movement outcomes (i.e., movement time and angular errors) regardless of visual feedback or reaching environment by the end of reach training. Furthermore, a reduction in variability across several measures (i.e., reaction time, movement time, time after peak velocity, and jerk score) over time showed that participants improved the consistency of their movements in both reaching environments. However, participants took more time and were less consistent in the timing of initiating their movements when reaching in a novel environment compared to reaching in a typical environment, even at the end of training. As well, angular error variability at different proportions of the movement trajectory was consistently greater when reaching in a novel environment across trials and within a trial. Together, the results suggest a greater contribution of offline control processes and less effective online corrective processes when reaching in a novel environment compared to when reaching in a typical environment.

Visuomotor feedback gains are modulated by gaze position

During goal-directed reaching, people typically direct their gaze to the target before the start of the hand movement and maintain fixation until the hand arrives. This gaze strategy improves reach accuracy in two ways. It enables the use of central vision at the end of movement, and it allows the use of extraretinal information in guiding the hand to the target. Here we tested whether fixating the reach target further facilitates reach accuracy by optimizing the use of peripheral vision in detecting, and rapidly responding to, reach errors during the ongoing movement. We examined automatic visuomotor corrections in response to displacements of the cursor representing the hand position as a function of gaze fixation location during unimanual goal-directed reaching. Eight fixation targets were positioned either in line with, or at different angles relative to, the straight-ahead movement direction (manipulation of fixation angle), and at different distances from the location of the visual perturbation (manipulation of fixation distance). We found that corrections were fastest and strongest when gaze was directed at the reach target compared with when gaze was directed to a different location in the workspace. We found that the gain of the visuomotor response was strongly affected by fixation angle, and to a smaller extent by fixation distance, with lower gains as the angle or distance increased. We submit that fixating the reach target improves reach accuracy by facilitating rapid visuomotor responses to reach errors viewed in peripheral vision. NEW & NOTEWORTHY It is well known that directing gaze to the reach target allows the use of foveal visual feedback and extraretinal information to improve the accuracy of reaching movements. Here we demonstrate that target fixation also optimizes rapid visuomotor corrections to reach errors viewed in peripheral vision, with the angle of gaze relative to the hand movement being a critical determinant in the gain of the visuomotor response.

Is visual-based, online control of manual-aiming movements disturbed when adapting to new movement dynamics?

Previous research has shown that for goal-directed movements, online visual feedback is not necessary for the adaptation of movement planning to novel movement dynamics. In the present study, we wanted to put this proposition to a stringent test and determine whether the usually dominant role of online visual feedback in movement control is diminished when goal-directed movements are performed in a condition that modifies limb dynamics. Participants performed a video-aiming task while the center of mass of their forearm was experimentally displaced by a 1.5-kg mass attached laterally to its longitudinal axis. A cursor representing the position of the participant's hand was either visible or not visible during the acquisition phase. Then, in a transfer test, the participants performed the task without online visual feedback and either with or without the lateral mass. During the acquisition phase, the participants adapted to the new movement dynamics imposed by the added mass regardless of whether online visual feedback was available. An important new finding of the present study was the observation that the role usually played by online visual feedback in refining movement planning and ensuring control of the initial portion of goal-directed movements was suppressed during adaptation to novel movement dynamics. This resulted in an increase in the role played by visual feedback late in the movement to ensure endpoint accuracy.

Determinants of offline processing of visual information for the control of reaching movements

The authors investigated the use of visual feedback as a form of knowledge of results (KR) for the control of rapid (200-250 ms) reaching movements in 40 participants. They compared endpoint accuracy and intraindividual variability of a full-vision group (FV) with those of no-vision groups provided with KR regarding (a) the endpoint in numerical form, (b) the endpoint in visual form, or (c) the endpoint and the trajectory in visual form (DEL). The FV group was more accurate and less variable than were the no-vision groups, and the analysis of limb trajectory variability indicated that their superior performance resulted primarily from better movement planning rather than from online visual processes. The FV group outperformed the DEL group even though both groups were obtaining the same amount of spatial visual information from every movement. That finding suggests that the effectiveness with which visual feedback is processed offline is not a simple function of the amount of visual information available, but depends on how that information is presented.

The contribution of peripheral and central vision in the control of movement amplitude

Past research has revealed that central vision is more important than peripheral vision in controlling the amplitude of target-directed aiming movements. However, the extent to which central vision contributes to movement planning versus online control is unclear. Since participants usually fixate the target very early in the limb trajectory, the limb enters the central visual field during the late stages of movement. Hence, there may be insufficient time for central vision to be processed online to correct errors during movement execution. Instead, information from central vision may be processed offline and utilised as a form of knowledge of results, enhancing the programming of subsequent trials. In the present research, variability in limb trajectories was analysed to determine the extent to which peripheral and central vision is used to detect and correct errors during movement execution. Participants performed manual aiming movements of 450 ms under four different visual conditions: full vision, peripheral vision, central vision, no vision. The results revealed that participants utilised visual information from both the central and peripheral visual fields to adjust limb trajectories during movement execution. However, visual information from the central visual field was used more effectively to correct errors online compared to visual information from the peripheral visual field.

On-line vs. off-line utilization of peripheral visual afferent information to ensure spatial accuracy of goal-directed movements

Manual aiming movements are often initiated when one gazes at the target, while the hand is seen in peripheral vision. The objective of the present study was to determine whether vision of one's hand in peripheral vision and/or central vision as it progresses towards the target can be used to modulate the direction and the extent components of the initial movement impulse. Participants performed video aiming movements while vision of the cursor they were moving was permitted for its whole trajectory, 40 degrees to 15 degrees of visual angle, 15 degrees to 0 degrees of visual angle, or not visible at all. Movements were to be completed within prescribed movement times varying between 300 ms and 900 ms. The results did not reveal endpoint accuracy or variability differences between the 40 degrees -15 degrees and the 15 degrees -0 degrees visual feedback conditions. Both conditions yielded lower endpoint bias and variability than the no-vision condition from early on after movement initiation. This indicates that the visual afferent information available in the 40 degrees -15 degrees and the 15 degrees -0 degrees visual feedback conditions could be used to better plan upcoming movements than the no vision condition. From these data, it appears very unlikely that different portions of the retina are specialized for processing different movement attributes as has been suggested in the past (Paillard 1980; Paillard and Amblard 1985). Both the peripheral and central retina are apt at detecting on-line extent and direction errors in one's movement. In addition, the data cast serious doubts on the widely accepted proposition that the movement initial impulse is essentially ballistic.

Online versus offline processing of visual feedback in the production of component submovements

The present authors tested the assumptions in R. S. Woodworth's (1899) 2-component model regarding the specific roles of vision in the production of both the initial impulse and the error-correction phases of movement. Participants (N = 40) practiced a rapid aiming task (1,500 trials), with either no visual feedback, vision of only the 1st 50% of the movement, vision of only the 1st 75% of the movement, or vision of the entire movement. Consistent with previous research, the availability of vision over the 1st half of the movement had no effect on aiming accuracy during acquisition. In contrast, when visual feedback was available over the 1st 75% of the movement and the entire movement, initial impulse endpoints were less variable and the efficiency of the error-correction phase was improved. Analysis of spatial variability at various stages in the movement revealed that participants processed visual feedback offline to improve programming of the initial impulse and processed it online in regulating the deceleration of the initial impulse.

The utilization of visual feedback in the control of movement direction: evidence from a video aiming task

The purpose of the present study was to establish the contribution of visual feedback in the correction of errors during movement execution (i.e., online) and the utilization of visual feedback from a completed movement in the programming of upcoming trials (i.e., offline). Participants performed 2 dimensional sweeping movements on a digitizing tablet through 1 of 3 targets, which were represented on a video monitor. The movements were performed with and without visual feedback under 4 criterion movement times (150, 250, 350, 450 msec). We analyzed the variability in directional error at 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% of the distance between the home position and the target. There were significant differences in variability between visual conditions at each movement time. However, in the 150-msec condition, the form of the variability profiles did not differ between visual conditions, suggesting that the contribution of visual feedback was due to offline processes. In the 250-, 350-, and 450-msec conditions, there was evidence for both online and offline control, as the form of the variability profiles differed between the vision and no vision conditions.

On the role of peripheral visual afferent information for the control of rapid video-aiming movements

It has been shown that, even for very fast and short duration movements, seeing one's hand in peripheral vision, or a cursor representing it on a video screen, resulted in a better direction accuracy of a manual aiming movement than when the task was performed while only the target was visible. However, it is still unclear whether this was caused by on-line or off-line processes. Through a novel series of analyses, the goal of the present study was to shed some light on this issue. We replicated previous results showing that the visual information concerning one's movement, which is available between 40 degrees and 25 degrees of visual angle, is not useful to ensure direction accuracy of video-aiming movements, whereas visual afferent information available between 40 degrees and 15 degrees of visual angle improved direction accuracy over a target-only condition. In addition, endpoint variability on the direction component of the task was scaled to direction variability observed at peak movement velocity. Similar observations were made in a second experiment when the position of the cursor was translated to the left or to the right as soon as it left the starting base. Further, the data showed no evidence of on-line correction to the direction dimension of the task for the translated trials. Taken together, the results of the two experiments strongly suggest that, for fast video-aiming movements, the information concerning one's movement that is available in peripheral vision is used off-line.

Online versus offline processing of visual feedback in the control of movement amplitude

Researchers have suggested that visual feedback not only plays a role in the correction of errors during movement execution but that visual feedback from a completed movement is processed offline to improve programming on upcoming trials. In the present study, we examined the potential contribution of online and offline processing of visual feedback by analysing spatial variability at various kinematic landmarks in the limb trajectory (peak acceleration, peak velocity, peak negative acceleration and movement end). Participants performed a single degree of freedom video aiming task with and without vision of the cursor under four criterion movement times (225, 300, 375 and 450 ms). For movement times of 225 and 300 ms, the full vision condition was less variable than the no vision condition. However, the form of the variability profiles did not differ between visual conditions suggesting that the contribution of visual feedback was due to offline processes. In the 375 and 450 ms conditions, there was evidence for both online and offline control as the form of the variability profiles differed significantly between visual conditions.

Optimal control strategies under different feedback schedules: kinematic evidence

Two experiments were conducted in which participants (N = 12, Experiment 1; N = 12, Experiment 2) performed rapid aiming movements with and without visual feedback under blocked, random, and alternating feedback schedules. Prior knowledge of whether vision would be available had a significant impact on the strategies that participants adopted. When they knew that vision would be available, less time was spent preparing movements before movement initiation. Participants also reached peak deceleration sooner but spent more time after peak deceleration adjusting limb trajectories. Consistent with those findings, analysis of spatial variability at different points in the trajectory indicated that variability increased up to peak deceleration but then decreased from peak deceleration to the end of the movement.

Exploring the limits of peripheral vision for the control of movement

The role played by peripheral visual information in the control of aiming movements is not fully understood, as is indicated by the conflicting results reported in the literature. In the present study, the authors tested and confirmed the hypothesis that the source of the conflict lies in the portion of the visual peripheral field that has been under scrutiny in the different studies. Participants (N = 60) moved a computer mouse from a fixed starting position to 1 of 3 targets under varied vision conditions. The portion of the peripheral visual field that best ensured directional accuracy of a sweeping movement was found to be located between 20 degrees and 10 degrees of visual angle, whereas the area found to favor directional accuracy of an aiming movement comprised 30 degrees through 10 degrees of visual angle.