To successfully lift an object, a person’s fingers must be moved to locations where forces can be applied that are sufficient for maintaining contact and that allow for easy object manipulation. Obtaining such finger positions becomes more difficult when there is perceptual uncertainty about the location of the hand and object. However, knowledge about the amount of uncertainty could be incorporated into grasp plans to mitigate its effect. For example, during peripheral viewing the fingers could open wider to avoid colliding with or missing the object. The goal of this study is to determine the degree to which people incorporate their understanding of visual uncertainty when making a precision grasp. To investigate, subjects reached to a spatially fixed object whose retinal location was varied by fixating points 0–80° to the left of the object. This manipulation controlled the visual uncertainty of the hand and target without affecting the kinematic demands of the task. We found that people systematically changed their grasping behavior as a function of the amount of visual uncertainty in the task. Specifically, subjects’ maximum grip aperture increased linearly with target eccentricity. Moreover, the effect of visual uncertainty on finger trajectories could be captured by a single dimension of change along an axis. Together, these findings suggest that the sensorimotor system estimates visual uncertainty and behaviorally adjusts for it during grasping movements.
Visual uncertainty Reach and grasp Maximum grip aperture Principal components analysis Displacement vector
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
This project was funded by NIH grant NEI R01 EY015261.
Berthier NE, Clifton RK, Gullipalli V, McCall D, Robin D (1996) Visual information and object size in the control of reaching. J Motor Behav 28:187–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burbeck CA, Yap YL (1990) Two mechanisms for localization? Evidence for separation-dependent and separation-independent processing of position information. Vision Res 30:739–750PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levi DM, Klein SA (1996) Limitations on position coding imposed by undersampling and univariance. Vision Res 36:2111–2120PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niemeier M, Crawford JD, Tweed DB (2003) Optimal transsaccadic integration explains distorted spacial perception. Nature 422:76–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paulignan Y, Jeannerod M, MacKenzie C, Marteniuk (1991) Selective perturbation of visual input during prehension movements 2. The effects of changing object size. Exp Brain Res 87:407–420PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paulignan Y, Frak VG, Toni I, Jeannerod M (1997) Influence of object position and size on human prehension movements. Exp Brain Res 114:226–234PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabes PN, Jordan MI (1997) Obstacle avoidance and a sensitivity model of motor planning. J Neurosci 17:7119–7128PubMedGoogle Scholar
Sivak B, MacKenzie CL (1990) Integration of visual information and motor output in reaching and grasping: the contributions of peripheral and central vision. Neuropsychologia 28:1095–1116PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar