Abstract
Danckert and Goodale [Exp Brain Res 137:303–308 (2001)] have shown that increases in movement time as target size decreased were greater when movements were performed in the lower compared with upper visual field. On this basis, they suggested that visual feedback processing was more effective in the lower visual field. However, despite the greater influence of target size on movement time for the lower compared to upper visual field, there were no differences in accuracy between visual fields for movements to the smallest targets. In the present study, we investigated whether superior performance would be observed in the lower visual field when movement times were constrained. Analysis of the variability in distance travelled at key kinematic markers (e.g. peak acceleration, peak velocity, and peak negative acceleration) revealed that limb trajectories were more consistent in the lower compared to upper visual field at the late stages of the movement. Also, squared correlation coefficients between the distance travelled at peak velocity and the distance at the end of the movement were smaller for movements performed in the lower visual field. These results imply that superior performance in the lower visual field was due to better utilization of visual feedback during movement execution.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Since correlation coefficients are not normally distributed, we also analysed the squared Fischer Z transforms of the correlation coefficients. This did not change the outcome of the analysis
References
Abrams RA, Meyer DE, Kornblum S (1990) Eye-hand coordination: oculomotor control in rapid aimed limb movements. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 16:248–267
Danckert J, Goodale MA (2001) Superior performance for visually guided pointing in the lower visual field. Exp Brain Res 137:303–308
Danckert J, Goodale MA (2004) Ups and downs in the visual control of action. In: Johnson-Frey SH (ed) Taking action: cognitive neuroscience perspectives on intentional actions. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., pp 29–64
Elliott D, Helsen WF, Chua R (2001) A century later: Woodworth’s two-component model of goal directed aiming. Psychol Bull 127:342–357
Gordon J, Ghez C (1987) Trajectory control in targeted force impulses III. Compensatory adjustments for initial errors. Exp Brain Res 67:253–269
Khan MA, Franks IM (2003) Online versus offline processing of visual feedback in the production of component submovements. J Motor Behav 35:285–295
Khan MA, Elliott D, Coull J, Chua R, Lyons J (2002) Optimal control strategies under different feedback schedules. J Motor Behav 34:45–57
Khan MA, Lawrence GP, Fourkas A, Franks IM, Elliott D, Pembroke S (2003) Online versus offline processing of visual feedback in the control of movement amplitude. Acta Psychol 113:83–97
Messier J, Kalaska JF (1999) Comparison of variability of initial kinematics and endpoints of reaching movements. Exp Brain Res 125:139–252
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Khan, M.A., Lawrence, G.P. Differences in visuomotor control between the upper and lower visual fields. Exp Brain Res 164, 395–398 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-005-2325-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-005-2325-7