Pointing in 3D space to remembered targets. I. Kinesthetic versus visual target presentation
Pointing in 3D space to remembered targets. I. Kinesthetic versus visual target presentation
复制标题
DOI：
10.1152/jn.1998.79.6.2833
复制
发表时间：
1998-06-01
影响因子：
2.5
通讯作者：
Poizner, H
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Adamovich, SV;Berkinblit, MB;Poizner, H
本研究探讨了不同形式的目标信息（视觉，动觉）的准确性，运动学和关节间的协调指向运动记住的目标的影响。这些目标由机器人手臂在三维（3D）空间的五个位置呈现，要么作为暗室中的一个光点（“视觉”条件），要么作为动觉。相对指向精度的视觉动觉条件相比，目标位置的影响：指向错误是最大的视觉目标最偏心相对于受试者的头部。此外，对于两个最外侧的目标，最终的手臂位置，平均而言，更接近中心比目标的视觉条件和更远离中心比目标的动觉条件。这一结果表明，在其他地方描述的视觉条件下的错误模式（“范围效应”）可能来自视觉处理，而不是微尘的规划和实施。使用两种动觉目标呈现模式。在“被动”的动觉呈现中，实验者移动受试者放松的手臂;在“主动”的动觉呈现中，受试者主动（在实验者的帮助下）移动他的手臂。在最终的指尖位置的变化是显着较小的主动条件下比被动条件。相比之下，在主动和被动条件下，手臂方向角的最终值的变化没有显着差异。这种明显的矛盾可以通过以下事实来解决：对于给定的目标位置，在给定的试验中这些角度与其平均值的偏差对指尖位置的影响往往是相互补偿的，并且这种趋势在活动状态下更强。我们的分析之间的相关性的手臂方向角度和初始和最终的手臂配置之间的关系表明，动觉条件下实现的混合策略，以实现准确性。第一种策略是使用适当臂配置的特定记忆（在目标呈现期间假设的），使得通过使用该记忆作为模板来实现准确性。第二种策略是使用协同协调关节角度，以便通过关注一系列等效臂位置可以达到的特定终点来实现准确性。后一种策略更好地利用在积极的条件。总之，我们的研究结果表明，人类受试者可以使用不同的感官信息，以达到可比的最终准确性，但所采用的策略的细节不同的信息。
This study investigated the influence of different modalities of target information (visual, kinesthetic) on the accuracy, kinematics, and interjoint coordination of pointing movements to remembered targets. The targets were presented by a robot arm in five locations in three-dimensional (3D) space, either as a point of light in a dark room ("visual" condition), or kinesthetically. Relative pointing accuracy in the visual compared with kinesthetic conditions was influenced by the target location: pointing errors were the largest for the visual targets most eccentric relative to the subject's head. In addition, for the two most lateral targets, the final arm positions were, on average, closer to the center than the targets in the visual condition and farther from the center than the targets in the kinesthetic conditions. This result suggests that the pattern of errors in the visual condition described elsewhere ("range effect") may derive from visual processing rather than motes planning and implementation. Two modes of kinesthetic target presentation were utilized. During "passive" kinesthetic presentation of the target, the experimenter moved the subject's relaxed arm. Alternately, in "active" kinesthetic presentation of the target, the subject actively (with minimal help from the experimenter) moved his arm. No visual feedback was allowed in either kinesthetic condition. The variability in the final fingertip position was significantly smaller in the active condition than in the passive condition. In contrast, variability in the final values of arm orientation angles did not differ significantly in the active and passive conditions. This apparent contradiction may be resolved by the fact that, for the given target location, the influence of the deviation of these angles in the given trial from their average values on the position of the fingertip tended to be mutually compensated, and this tendency was stronger in the active condition. Our analysis of the correlations among the arm orientation angles and of the relationship between the initial and final arm configurations suggests that the kinesthetic conditions enabled the implementation of a mixture of strategies for achieving accuracy. The first strategy is to use a specific memory of an adequate arm configuration (that assumed during target presentation), such that accuracy is achieved by using this memory as a template. The second strategy is to use synergistically coordinating joint angles, such that accuracy is achieved by focusing on a specific endpoint that can be reached by a range of equivalent arm positions. The latter strategy was better utilized in the active condition. In conclusion, our results indicate that human subjects can use diverse sensory information to achieve comparable final accuracy, but that the details of the strategies employed differ with the kind of information available.