Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 186, Issue 3, pp 375–384 | Cite as

Goal-directed reaching: movement strategies influence the weighting of allocentric and egocentric visual cues

  • Kristina A. Neely
  • Ayla Tessmer
  • Gordon Binsted
  • Matthew HeathEmail author
Research Article


The location of an object in peripersonal space can be represented with respect to our body (i.e., egocentric frame of reference) or relative to contextual features and other objects (i.e., allocentric frame of reference). In the current study, we sought to determine whether the frame, or frames, of visual reference supporting motor output is influenced by reach trajectories structured to maximize visual feedback utilization (i.e., controlled online) or structured largely in advance of movement onset via central planning mechanisms (i.e., controlled offline). Reaches were directed to a target embedded in a pictorial illusion (the induced Roelofs effect: IRE) and advanced knowledge of visual feedback was manipulated to influence the nature of reaching control as reported by Zelaznik et al. (J Mot Behav 15:217–236, 1983). When vision could not be predicted in advance of movement onset, trajectories showed primary evidence of an offline mode of control (even when vision was provided) and endpoints demonstrated amplified sensitivity to the illusory (i.e., allocentric) features of the IRE. In contrast, reaches performed with reliable visual feedback evidenced a primarily online mode of control and showed increased visuomotor resistance to the IRE. These findings suggest that the manner a reaching response is structured differentially influences the weighting of allocentric and egocentric visual information. More specifically, when visual feedback is unavailable or unpredictable, the weighting of allocentric visual information for the advanced planning of a reach trajectory is increased.


Allocentric Egocentric Induced Roelofs effect Reaching Offline Online 



Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada Discovery Grants (MH and GB) and a University of Western Ontario Major Academic Development Fund Award (MH) supported this research.


  1. Adamovich SV, Berkinblit MB, Fookson O, Poizner H (1999) Pointing in 3D space to remembered targets. II. Effects of movement speed toward kinesthetically defined targets. Exp Brain Res 125:200–210PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beggs WD, Howarth CI (1970) Movement control in a repetitive motor task. Nature 225:752–753PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Binsted G, Brownell K, Vorontsova Z, Heath M, Saucier D (2007) Visuomotor system uses target information unavailable to conscious awareness. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:12669–12672PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Binsted G, Heath M (2004) Can the motor system use a stored representation to control movement? Behav Brain Sci 27:25–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bridgeman B, Gemmer A, Forsman T, Huemer V (2000) Processing spatial information in the sensorimotor branch of the visual system. Vision Res 40:3539–3352PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bridgeman B, Peery S, Anand S (1997) Interaction of cognitive and sensorimotor maps of visual space. Percept Psychophys 59:456–469PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Carlton LG (1981) Processing visual feedback information for movement control. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 7:1019–1030PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coello Y, Grealy MA (1997) Effect of size and frame of visual field on the accuracy of an aiming movement. Perception 26:287–300PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coello Y, Richaud S, Magne P, Rossetti Y (2003) Vision for spatial perception and vision for action: a dissociation between the left–right and near–far dimensions. Neuropsychologia 41:622–633PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Conti P, Beaubaton D (1980) Role of structured visual field and visual reafference in accuracy of pointing movements. Percept Mot Skills 50:239–244PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Culham JC, Danckert SL, DeSouza JF, Gati JS, Menon RS, Goodale MA (2003) Visually guided grasping produces fMRI activation in dorsal but not ventral stream brain areas. Exp Brain Res 153:180–189PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Daprati E, Gentilucci M (1997) Grasping an illusion. Neuropsychologia 35:1577–1582PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dassonvile P, Bridgeman B, Bala JK, Thiem P, Sampanes A (2004) The induced Roelofs effect: two visual systems or the shift of a single reference frame? Vision Res 44:603–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Diedrichsen J, Werner S, Schmidt T, Trommershäuser J (2004) Immediate spatial distortions of pointing movements induced by visual landmarks. Percept Psychophys 66:89–103PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Elliott D (1988) The influence of visual target and limb information on manual aiming. Can J Psychol 42:57–68PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Elliott D, Allard F (1985) The utilization of visual feedback information during rapid pointing movements. Q J Exp Psychol 37:407–425Google Scholar
  17. Elliott D, Binsted G, Heath M (1999a) The control of goal-directed limb movements: correcting errors in the trajectory. Hum Mov Sci 18:121–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Elliott D, Heath M, Binsted G, Ricker KL, Roy EA, Chua R (1999b) Goal-directed aiming: correcting a force-specification error with the right and left hands. J Mot Behav 31:309–324PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Elliott D, Helsen WF, Chua R (2001) A century later: Woodworth’s (1899) two-component model of goal-directed aiming. Psychol Bull 127:342–57PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Elliott D, Lee TD (1995) The role of target information on manual-aiming bias. Psychol Res 58:2–9Google Scholar
  21. Elliott D, Madalena J (1987) The influence of premovement visual information on manual aiming. Q J Exp Psychol 39A:541–559Google Scholar
  22. Gentilucci M, Chieffi S, Daprati E, Saetti MC, Toni I (1996) Visual illusion and action. Neuropsychologia 34:369–376PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Glazebrook CM, Dhillon VP, Keetch KM, Lyons J, Amazeen E, Weeks DJ, Elliott D (2005) Perception-action and the Muller-Lyer illusion: amplitude or endpoint bias? Exp Brain Res 160:71–78PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Goodale MA, Milner AD (1992) Separate visual pathways for perception and action. Trends Neurosci 15:20–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Goodale MA, Westwood DA (2004) An evolving view of duplex vision: separate but interacting cortical pathways for perception and action. Curr Opin Neurobiol 14:203–211PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Goodale MA, Westwood DA, Milner AD (2004) Two distinct modes of control for object-directed action. Prog Brain Res 144:131–144PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Heath M (2005) Role of limb and target vision in the online control of memory-guided reaches. Motor Control 9:281–311PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Heath M, Neely K, Binsted G (2007) Allocentric visual cues influence online limb adjustments. Motor Control 11:54–70PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Heath M, Rival C (2005) Role of the visuomotor system in on-line attenuation of a premovement illusory bias in grip aperture. Brain Cogn 57:111–114PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Heath M, Rival C, Binsted G (2004a) Can the motor system resolve a premovement bias in grip aperture? Online analysis of grasping the Müller-Lyer illusion. Exp Brain Res 158:378–384PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Heath M, Rival C, Neely K (2006a) Visual feedback schedules influence visuomotor resistance to the Müller-Lyer figures. Exp Brain Res 168:348–56PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Heath M, Rival C, Neely K, Krigolson O (2006b) Müller-Lyer illusions influence the online reeorganziation of visually guided grasping movements. Exp Brain Res 169:473–481PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Heath M, Rival C, Westwood DA, Neely K (2005) Time course analysis of closed- and open-loop grasping of the Müller-Lyer illusion. J Mot Behav 37:179–185PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Heath M, Westwood DA (2003) Can a visual representation support the online control of memory-dependent reaching? Evidence from a variable spatial mapping paradigm. Motor Control 7:346–361PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Heath M, Westwood DA, Binsted G (2004b) The control of memory-guided reaching movements in peripersonal space. Motor Control 8:76–106PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Henry FM (1986) Development of the motor memory trace and control program. J Mot Behav 18:77–100PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Henry FM, Rogers DE (1960) Increased response latency for complication movements and a “memory drum” theory of neuromotor reaction. Res Q Exerc Sport 31:448–458Google Scholar
  38. Held R, Gottlieb N (1958) Technique for studying adaptation to disarranged hand–eye coordination. Percept Mot Skills 8:83–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hu Y, Goodale MA (2000) Grasping after a delay shifts size-scaling from absolute to relative metrics. J Cogn Neurosci 12:856–868PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hu Y, Eagleson R, Goodale MA (1999) The effects of delay on the kinematics of grasping. Exp Brain Res 126:109–116PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Jakobson LS, Goodale MA (1991) Factors affecting higher-order movement planning: a kinematic analysis of human prehension. Exp Brain Res 86:199–208PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. James TW, Culham J, Humphrey GK, Milner AD, Goodale MA (2003) Ventral occipital lesions impair object recognition but not object-directed grasping: an fMRI study. Brain 126:2463–2475PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Khan MA, Elliott D, Coull J, Chua R, Lyons J (2002) Optimal control strategies under different feedback schedules: kinematic evidence. J Mot Behav 32:45–57Google Scholar
  44. Keetch KM, Glazebrook CM, Lyons J, Lam MY, Weeks DJ, Elliott D (2006) The effect of response uncertainty on illusory biases of perception and action. Neurosci Lett 406:117–121PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Keele SW (1968) Movement control in skilled motor performance. Psychol Bull 70:387–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Klapp ST (1975) Feedback versus motor programming in the control of aimed movements. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 104:161–169PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Krigolson O, Clark N, Heath M, Binsted G (2007) The proximity of visual landmarks impacts reaching performance. Spat Vis 20:317–336PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Krigolson O, Heath M (2004) Background visual cues and memory-guided reaching. Hum Mov Sci 23:861–877PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Krigolson O, Heath M (2006) A lower visual field advantage for endpoint stability but no advantage for online movement precision. Exp Brain Res 170:127–135PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. McIntosh RD, McClements KI, Schindler I, Cassidy TP, Birchall D, Milner AD (2004) Avoidance of obstacles in the absence of visual awareness. Proc Biol Sci 7:15–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. McIntyre J, Stratta F, Lacquaniti F (1997) Viewer-centered frame of reference for pointing to memorized targets in three-dimensional space. J Neurophysiol 78:1601–1618PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Mendoza JE, Elliott D, Meegan DV, Lyons JL, Welsh TN (2006) The effect of the Muller-Lyer illusion on the planning and control of manual aiming movements. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 32:413–422PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Mendoza J, Hansen S, Glazebrook CM, Keetch KM, Elliott D (2005) Visual illusions affect both movement planning and on-line control: a multiple cue position on bias and goal-directed action. Hum Mov Sci 24:760–773PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Merigan WH, Maunsell JH (1993) How parallel are the primate visual pathways? Annu Rev Neurosci 16:369–402PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Messier J, Kalaska JF (1999) Comparison of variability of initial kinematics and endpoints of reaching movements. Exp Brain Res 125:139–152PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Meyer DA, Abrams RA, Kornblum S, Wright CE, Smith JEK (1988) Optimality in human motor performance: ideal control of rapid aimed movements. Psychol Rev 95:340–370PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Milner AD, Goodale MA (1995) The visual brain in action. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  58. Milner D, Dyde R (2003) Why do some perceptual illusions affect visually guided action, when others don’t? Trends Cogn Sci 7:10–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Neely KA (2005) The induced Roelofs effect: evidence for an interaction between allocentric and egocentric visual information. Unpublished master’s thesis, Indiana University, BloomingtonGoogle Scholar
  60. Neely KA, Binsted G, Heath M (2007) Allocentric and egocentric visual cues influence the specification of movement distance and direction. J Mot Behav (in press)Google Scholar
  61. Obhi SS, Goodale MA (2005) The effects of landmarks on the performance of delayed and real-time pointing movements. Exp Brain Res 167:335–344PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Pisella L, Grea H, Tilikete C, Vighetto A, Desmurget M, Rode G, Boisson D, Rossetti Y (2000) An ‘automatic pilot’ for the hand in human posterior parietal cortex: toward reinterpreting optic ataxia. Nat Neurosci 3:729–736PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Plamondon R (1995) A kinematic theory of rapid human movements. Part II. Movement time and control. Biol Cybern 72:309–720PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Proteau L, Marteniuk RG, Levesque L (1992) A sensorimotor basis for motor learning: evidence indicating specificity of practice. Q J Exp Psychol 44A:557–575Google Scholar
  65. Redon C, Hay L (2005) Role of visual context and oculomotor conditions in pointing accuracy. Neuroreport 16:2065–2067PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Schluter ND, Rushworth MF, Mills KR, Passingham RE (1999) Signal-, set-, and movement-related activity in the human premotor cortex. Neuropsychologia 37:233–243PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Schmidt RA, Zelaznik H, Hawkins B, Frank JS, Quinn JT (1979) Motor-output variability: a theory for the accuracy of rapid motor acts. Psychol Rev 47:415–451PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Schindler I, Rice NJ, McIntosh RD, Rossetti Y, Vighetto A, Milner AD (2004) Automatic avoidance of obstacles is a dorsal stream function: evidence from optic ataxia. Nat Neurosci 7:779–784PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Smeets JBJ, Brenner E, de Grave DDJ, Cuijpers RH (2002) Illusions in action: consequences of inconsistent processing of spatial attributes. Exp Brain Res 147:135–144PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Smyrnis N, Taira M, Ashe J, Georgopoulos AP (1992) Motor cortical activity in a memorized delay task. Exp Brain Res 92:139–151PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Ungerleider LG, Courtney SM, Haxby JV (1998) A neural system for human visual working memory. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95:883–90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Velay JL, Beaubaton D (1986) Influence of visual context on pointing movement accuracy. Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive 6:447–456Google Scholar
  73. Westwood DA, Heath M, Roy EA (2000) The effect of a pictorial illusion on closed-loop and open-loop prehension. Exp Brain Res 134:456–463PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Westwood DA, Heath M, Roy EA (2001) The accuracy of reaching movements in brief delay conditions. Can J Exp Psychol 55:304–10PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. Westwood DA, Heath M, Roy EA (2003) No evidence for accurate visuomotor memory: systematic and variable error in memory-guided reaching. J Mot Behav 35:127–133PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Westwood DA, Goodale MA (2003) Perceptual illusion and the real-time control of action. Spat Vis 16:243–254PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Whitney D, Westwood DA, Goodale MA (2003) The influence of visual motion on fast reaching movements to a stationary object. Nature 423:869–873PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Woodworth RS (1899) The accuracy of voluntary movement. Psychol Rev 3:1–114Google Scholar
  79. Zelaznik HZ, Hawkins B, Kisselburgh L (1983) Rapid visual feedback processing in single-aiming movements. J Mot Behav 15:217–236PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kristina A. Neely
    • 1
  • Ayla Tessmer
    • 1
  • Gordon Binsted
    • 2
  • Matthew Heath
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.School of Kinesiology, The University of Western OntarioLondonCanada
  2. 2.Coordination Perception and Action LabUniversity of British ColumbiaOkanaganCanada

Personalised recommendations