Advertisement

Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 183, Issue 1, pp 61–74 | Cite as

Rapid recalibration based on optic flow in visually guided action

  • Brett R. FajenEmail author
Research Article

Abstract

Action capabilities are always subject to limits. Whether on foot or in a vehicle, people can only move so fast, slow down so quickly, and turn so sharply. The successful performance of almost any perceptual-motor task requires actors to learn and continually relearn their ever-changing action capabilities. Such learning can be considered an example of perceptual-motor calibration. The present study includes two experiments designed to address basic questions about the nature of this calibration process. Subjects performed a simulated braking task, using a foot pedal to slow down to a stop in front of an obstacle in the path of motion. At one point in the experiment, the strength of the brake was increased or decreased unbeknownst to subjects, and behavior before and after the change in brake strength was analyzed for evidence of recalibration. Experiment 1 showed that actors rapidly recalibrate following a change in brake dynamics, even when they are unaware of the change. In Experiment 2, the scene turned black one second after braking was initiated. Subjects still recalibrated following the change in brake strength, suggesting that information in the sensory consequences of the initial brake adjustment is sufficient for recalibration, even in the absence of feedback about the outcome (i.e., in terms of final position error) of the task. Discussion focuses on the critical but often overlooked role of calibration in continuously controlled visually guided action, and the nature of the information used for recalibration.

Keywords

Optic Flow Grip Force Stop Sign Action Capability Brake Pedal 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation (BCS 0236734). I thank Mark Stenpeck and Brian Richmond for programming the simulation and Sarah Bowie for collecting the data.

References

  1. Bhalla M, Proffitt DR (1999) Visual-motor recalibration in geographical slant perception. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 25:1076–1096PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bingham GP, Bradley A, Bailey M, Vinner R (2001) Accommodation, occlusion, and disparity matching are used to guide reaching: a comparison of actual versus virtual environments. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 27:1314–1334PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bingham GP, Pagano CC (1998) The necessity of a perception-action approach to definite distance perception: monocular distance perception to guide reaching. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 24:145–168PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bingham GP, Romack JL (1999) The rate of adaptation to displacement prisms remains constant despite acquisition of rapid calibration. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 25:1331–1346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bruggeman H, Pick HL Jr, Rieser JJ (2005) Learning to throw on a rotating carousel: recalibration based on limb dynamics and projectile kinematics. Exp Brain Res 163:188–197PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chapman S (1968) Catching a baseball. Am J Phys 36:368–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chardenon A, Montagne G, Laurent M, Bootsma RJ (2004) The perceptual control of goal-directed locomotion: a common control architecture for interception and navigation? Exp Brain Res 158:100–108PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Davidson PR, Wolpert DM (2005) Widespread access to predictive models in the motor system: a short review. J Neural Eng 2:S313–319PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dessing JC, Peper CE, Bullock D, Beek PJ (2005) How position, velocity, and temporal information combine in the prospective control of catching: data and model. J Cogn Neurosci 17:668–686PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Durgin FH, Pelah A (1999) Visuomotor adaptation without vision? Exp Brain Res 127:12–18PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Durgin FH, Pelah A, Fox LF, Lewis J, Kane R, Walley KA (2005) Self-motion perception during locomotor recalibration: more than meets the eye. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 31:398–419PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fajen BR (2001) Steering toward a goal by equalizing taus. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 27:953–968PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fajen BR (2005a) Calibration, information, and control strategies for braking to avoid a collision. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 31:480–501PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fajen BR (2005b) Perceiving possibilities for action: on the sufficiency of perceptual learning and calibration for the visual guidance of action. Perception 34:741–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fajen BR (2005c) The scaling of information to action in visually guided braking. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 31:1107–1123PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fajen BR, Warren WH (2004) Visual guidance of intercepting a moving target on foot. Perception 33:689–675PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fajen BR, Warren WH (2007) Behavioral dynamics of intercepting a moving target. Exp Brain Res (in press)Google Scholar
  18. Gray R (2004) The use and misuse of visual information for “go/no-go” decisions in driving. In: contemporary issues in traffic research and road user safety. Nova ScienceGoogle Scholar
  19. Gray R, Regan D (2000) Risky driving behavior: a consequence of motion adaptation for visually guided action. J Exp Psychol Hum Percep Perform 26:1721–1732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gray R, Regan D (2005) Perceptual processes used by drivers during overtaking in a driving simulator. Hum Fact 47:394–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jacobs DM, Michaels CF (2006) Lateral interception I: operative optical variables, attunement, and calibration. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 32:443–458PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lackner JR, DiZio P (1997) The role of reafference in recalibration of limb movement control and locomotion. J Vestib Res 7:303–310PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lee DN (1976) A theory of visual control of braking based on information about time-to-collision. Perception 5:437–459PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lenoir M, Musch E, Janssens M, Thiery E, Uyttenhove J (1999) Intercepting moving objects during self-motion. J Motor Behav 31:55–67Google Scholar
  25. McBeath MK, Shaffer DM, Kaiser MK (1995) How baseball outfielders determine where to run to catch fly balls. Science 268:569–573PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McLeod P, Reed N, Dienes Z (2006) The generalized optic acceleration cancellation theory of catching. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 32:139–148PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Miall RC, Jackson JK (2006) Adaptation to visual feedback delays in manual tracking: evidence against the Smith Predictor model of human visually guided action. Exp Brain Res 172:77–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Michaels CF, Oudejans RR (1992) The optics and actions of catching fly balls: zeroing out optical acceleration. Ecol Psychol 4:199–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Montagne G, Laurent M, Durey A, Bootsma R (1999) Movement reversals in ball catching. Exp Brain Res 129:87–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nowak DA, Hermsdorfer J (2003) Sensorimotor memory and grip force control: does grip force anticipate a self-produced weight change when drinking with a straw from a cup? Eur J Neurosci 18:2883–2892PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Oudejans RD, Michaels CF, van Dort B, Frissen EJP (1996a) To cross or not to cross: the effect of locomotion on street-crossing behavior. Ecol Psychol 8:259–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Oudejans RRD, Michaels CF, Bakker FC, Dolne MA (1996b) The relevance of action in perceiving affordances: perception of catchableness of fly balls. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 22:879–891PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pelah A, Barlow HB (1996) Visual illusion from running. Nature 381:283PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Peper L, Bootsma RJ, Mestre DR, Bakker FC (1994) Catching balls: how to get the hand to the right place at the right time. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 20:591–612PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rieser JJ, Pick HL Jr, Ashmead DH, Garing AE (1995) Calibration of human locomotion and models of perceptual-motor organization. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 21:480–497PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rock PB, Harris MG, Yates T (2006) A test of the tau-dot hypothesis of braking control in the real world. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 32:1479–1484PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tresilian JR, Wallis GM, Mattocks C (2004) Initiation of evasive manoeuvres during self-motion: a test of three hypotheses. Exp Brain Res 159:251–257PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wagman JB, Shockley K, Riley MA, Turvey MT (2001) Attunement, calibration, and exploration in fast haptic perceptual learning. J Mot Behav 33:323–327PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wann JP, Swapp DK (2000) Why you should look where you are going. Nat Neurosci 3:647–648PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Withagen R, Michaels CF (2004) Transfer of calibration in length perception by dynamic touch. Percept Psychophys 66:1282–1292PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Withagen R, Michaels CF (2005) The role of feedback information for calibration and attunement in perceiving length by dynamic touch. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 31:1379–1390PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wolpert DM, Ghahramani Z, Jordan MI (1995) An internal model for sensorimotor integration. Science 269:1880–1882PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Cognitive ScienceRensselaer Polytechnic InstituteTroyUSA

Personalised recommendations