Skip to main content

Impact of task difficulty on gaze behavior in a sequential object manipulation task

Abstract

Task difficulty affects both gaze behavior and hand movements. Therefore, the present study aimed to investigate how task difficulty modulates gaze behaviour with respect to the balance between visually monitoring the ongoing action and prospectively collecting visual information about the future course of the ongoing action. For this, we examined sequences of reach and transport movements of water glasses that differed in task difficulty using glasses filled to different levels. Participants had to grasp water glasses with different filling levels (100, 94, 88, 82, and 76%) and transport them to a target. Subsequently, they had to grasp the next water glass and transport it to a target on the opposite side. Results showed significant differences in both gaze and movement kinematics for higher filling levels. However, there were no relevant differences between the 88, 82, and 76% filling levels. Results revealed a significant influence of task difficulty on the interaction between gaze and kinematics during transport and a strong influence of task difficulty on gaze during the release phase between different grasp-to-place movements. In summary, we found a movement and gaze pattern revealing an influence of task difficulty that was especially evident for the later phases of transport and release.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

References

  1. Ballard DH, Hayhoe MM, Li F, Whitehead SD (1992) Hand–eye coordination during sequential tasks. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 337:331–338

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bowman MC, Johannson RS, Flanagan JR (2009) Eye-hand coordination in a sequential target contact task. Exp Brain Res 195(2):273–283. doi:10.1007/s00221-009-1781-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Brouwer A, Franz VH, Gegenfurtner KR (2009) Differences in fixations between grasping and viewing objects. J Vision 9(1):1–24. doi:10.1167/9.1.18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Desmurget M, Pélisson D, Rossetti Y, Prablanc C (1998) From eye to hand: planning goal-directed movements. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 22(6):761–788. doi:10.1016/S0149-7634(98),00004-9

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Eastough D, Edwards MG (2007) Movement kinematics in prehension are affected by grasping objects of different mass. Exp Brain Res 176:193–198

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Flanagan JR, Johansson RS (2003) Action plans used in action observation. Nature 424:769–771. doi:10.1038/nature01861

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Flanagan JR, Bowman MC, Johansson RS (2006) Control strategies in object manipulation tasks. Curr Opin Neurobiol 16(6):650–659. doi:10.1016/j.conb.2006.10.005

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hayhoe MM, Ballard D (2005) Eye movements in natural behavior. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9(4):188–194. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2005.02.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Henriques DY, Klier EM, Smith MA, Lowy D, Crawford JD (1998) Gaze-centered remapping of remembered visual space in an open-loop pointing task. J Neurosci 18(4):1583–1594

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Jeannerod M (1986) Mechanisms of visuomotor coordination: a study in normal and brain damaged subjects. Neuropsychologia 24(1):41–78

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Jeannerod M, Arbib MA, Rizzolatti G, Sakata H (1995) Grasping objets: the cortical mechanisms of visuomotor transformation. Trends Neurosci 18(7):314–320

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Johansson RS, Westling G, Bäckström A, Flanagan R (2001) Eye-hand coordination in object manipulation. J Neurosci 21(17):6917–6932

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Land MF (2009) Vision, eye movements, and natural behavior. Vis Neurosci 26(1):51–62. doi:10.1017/S0952523808080899

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Land MF, McLeod P (2000) From eye movements to actions: how batsmen hit the ball. Nat Neurosci 3(12):1340–1345. doi:10.1038/81887

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Land MF, Tatler B (2009) Looking and acting: Vision and eye movements in natural behaviour. Oxford University Press, Oxford. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198570943.001.0001

    Book  Google Scholar 

  16. Land MF, Mennie N, Rusted J (1999) The roles of vision and eye movements in the control of activities of daily living. Perception 28(11):1311–1328. doi:10.1068/p2935

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Latash ML, Jaric S (2002) Organization of drinking: postural characteristics of arm-head coordination. J Mot Behav 34(2):139–150. doi:10.1080/00222890209601936

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Napier JR (1956) The prehensile movements of the human hand. J Bone Joint Surg 38(B):902–913. doi:10.1007/978-1-4471-5451-8_85

    Google Scholar 

  19. Neggers SFW, Bekkering H (2000) Ocular gaze is anchored to the target of an ongoing pointing movement. J Neurophysiol 83:639–651

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Rand MK, Stelmach GE (2011) Effects of hand termination and accuracy requirements on eye-hand coordination in older adults. Behav Brain Res 219(1):39–46. doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2010.12.008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Rotman G, Troje NF, Johansson RS, Flanagan JR (2006) Eye movements when observing predictable and unpredictable actions. J Neurophysiol 96(3):1358–1369. doi:10.1152/jn.00227.2006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Savelsbergh GJ, Whiting HT, Bootsma RJ (1991) Grasping tau. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 17(2):315–322. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.17.2.315

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Smeets JBJ, Brenner E (2006) 10 Years of Illusions. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 32(6):1501–1504. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.32.6.1501

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Smeets JB, Hayhoe MM, Ballard DH (1996) Goal-directed arm movements change eye-head coordination. Exp Brain Res 109(3):434–440. doi:10.1007/BF00229627

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Voudouris D, Brenner E, Schot WD, Smeets JBJ (2010) Does planning a different trajectory influence the choice of grasping points? Exp Brain Res 206(1):15–24. doi:10.1007/s00221-010-2382-4

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the German Research Foundation (DFG) funded Collaborative Research Center on “Cardinal Mechanisms of Perception” (SFB-TRR 135).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Johannes Kurz.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 63 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 62 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kurz, J., Hegele, M., Reiser, M. et al. Impact of task difficulty on gaze behavior in a sequential object manipulation task. Exp Brain Res 235, 3479–3486 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-017-5062-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Reach–to–grasp
  • Placing movements
  • Task difficulty
  • Gaze behavior
  • Movement kinematics