Abstract
Most adults can skillfully avoid potential obstacles when acting in everyday cluttered scenes. We examined how gaze and hand movements are normally coordinated for obstacle avoidance and whether these are altered when binocular depth information is unavailable. Visual fixations and hand movement kinematics were simultaneously recorded, while 13 right-handed subjects reached-to-precision grasp a cylindrical household object presented alone or with a potential obstacle (wine glass) located to its left (thumb’s grasp side), right or just behind it (both closer to the finger’s grasp side) using binocular or monocular vision. Gaze and hand movement strategies differed significantly by view and obstacle location. With binocular vision, initial fixations were near the target’s centre of mass (COM) around the time of hand movement onset, but usually shifted to end just above the thumb’s grasp site at initial object contact, this mainly being made by the thumb, consistent with selecting this digit for guiding the grasp. This strategy was associated with faster binocular hand movements and improved end-point grip precision across all trials than with monocular viewing, during which subjects usually continued to fixate the target closer to its COM despite a similar prevalence of thumb-first contacts. While subjects looked directly at the obstacle at each location on a minority of trials and their overall fixations on the target were somewhat biased towards the grasp side nearest to it, these gaze behaviours were particularly marked on monocular vision-obstacle behind trials which also commonly ended in finger-first contact. Subjects avoided colliding with the wine glass under both views when on the right (finger side) of the workspace by producing slower and straighter reaches, with this and the behind obstacle location also resulting in ‘safer’ (i.e. narrower) peak grip apertures and longer deceleration times than when the goal object was alone or the obstacle was on its thumb side. But monocular reach paths were more variable and deceleration times were selectively prolonged on finger-side and behind obstacle trials, with this latter condition further resulting in selectively increased grip closure times and corrections. Binocular vision thus provided added advantages for collision avoidance, known to require intact dorsal cortical stream processing mechanisms, particularly when the target of the grasp and potential obstacle to it were fairly closely separated in depth. Different accounts of the altered monocular gaze behaviour converged on the conclusion that additional perceptual and/or attentional resources are likely engaged compared to when continuous binocular depth information is available. Implications for people lacking binocular stereopsis are briefly considered.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anderson J, Bingham GP (2010) A solution to the online guidance problem for targeted reaches: proportional rate control using relative disparity τ. Exp Brain Res 205:291–306
Bauer A, Dietz K, Hart W, Schiefer U (2001) The relevance of stereopsis for motorists: a pilot study. Graefe’s Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 239:400–406
Bradshaw MF, Elliot KM (2003) The role of binocular information in the ‘on-line’ control of prehension. Spat Vis 16:295–309
Bradshaw MF, Elliot KM, Watt SJ, Hibbard PB, Davies IT, Simpson PJ (2004) Binocular cues and the control of prehension. Spat Vis 17:95–110
Brouwer A-M, Franz VH, Gegenfurtner KR (2009) Differences in fixations between grasping and viewing objects. J Vis 9:1–24
Buckley JG, Panesar GK, MacLellan MJ, Pacey IE, Barrett BT (2010) Changes to control of adaptive gait in individuals with long-standing reduced stereoacuity. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 51:2487–2495
Cavina-Pratesi C, Hesse C (2013) Why do the eyes prefer the index finger? Simultaneous recording of eye and hand movements during precision grasping. J Vis 13:1–15
Cottereau BR, McKee SP, Ales JM, Norcia AM (2011) Disparity-tuned population responses from human visual cortex. J Neurosci 31:954–965
Culham JC, Brandt SA, Cavanagh P, Kanwisher NG, Dale AM, Tootell RBH (1998) Cortical fMRI activation produced by attentive tracking of moving targets. J Neurophysiol 80:2657–2670
Danckert J, Goodale MA (2001) Superior performance for visually guided pointing in the lower visual field. Exp Brain Res 137:303–308
de Grave DDJ, Hesse C, Brouwer A-M, Franz VH (2008) Fixation locations when grasping partly occluded objects. J Vision 8:1–11
Desanghere L, Marotta JJ (2011) “Graspability” of objects affects gaze patterns during perception and action tasks. Exp Brain Res 212:177–187
Fehd HM, Seiffert AE (2010) Looking at the center of the targets helps multiple object tracking. J Vis 10:1–13
Flanagan JR, Terao Y, Johansson RS (2008) Gaze behavior when reaching to remembered targets. J Neurophysiol 100:1533–1543
Gallivan JP, Cavina-Pratesi C, Culham JC (2009) Is that within reach? fMRI reveals that human superior parieto-occipital cortex encodes objects reachable by the hand. J Neurosci 29:4381–4391
Gnanaseelan R, Gonzalez D, Niechwiej-Szwedo E (2014) Binocular advantage for prehension movements performed in visually enriched environments requiring visual search. Front Hum Neurosci. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00959
Grant S, Melmoth DR, Morgan MJ, Finlay AL (2007) Prehension deficits in amblyopia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 48:1139–1148
Greenwald HS, Knill DC, Saunders JA (2005) Integrating visual cues for motor control: a matter of time. Vis Res 45:1975–1989
Haggard P, Wing AM (1997) On the hand transport component of prehensile movements. J Motor Behav 29:282–287
Jackson SR, Jackson GM, Rosicky J (1995) Are non-relevant objects represented in working memory? The effect of non-target objects on reach and grasp kinematics. Exp Brain Res 102:519–530
Jackson SR, Jones CA, Newport R, Pritchard C (1997) A kinematic analysis of goal-directed prehension movements executed under binocular, monocular, and memory-guided viewing conditions. Vis Cogn 4:113–142
Johansson RS, Westling G, Bäckström A, Flanagan JR (2001) Eye-hand coordination in object manipulation. J Neurosci 21:6917–6932
Keefe BD, Watt SJ (2009) The role of binocular vision in grasping: a small stimulus-set distorts results. Exp Brain Res 194:435–444
Knill DC (2005) Reaching for visual cues to depth: the brain combines depth cues differently for motor control and perception. J Vis 5:103–115
Kritikos A, Bennett KMB, Dunai J, Castiello U (2000) Interference from distractors in reach-to-grasp movements. Q J Exp Psychol 53A:131–151
Land MF, Mennie N, Rusted J (1997) The roles of vision and eye movements in the control of activities of daily living. Perception 28:1311–1328
Landy MS, Maloney LT, Johnston EB, Young M (1995) Measurement and modeling of depth cue combination: in defense of weak fusion. Vis Res 35:389–412
Loftus A, Servos P, Goodale MA, Mendarozqueta N, Mon-Williams M (2004) When two eyes are better than one in prehension: monocular viewing and end-point variance. Exp Brain Res 158:317–327
Makris S, Grant S, Hadar AA, Yarrow K (2013) Binocular vision enhances a rapidly evolving affordance priming effect: behavioural and TMS evidence. Brain Cogn 83:279–287
Marotta JJ, Goodale MA (2001) The role of familiar size in the control of grasping. J Cogn Neurosci 13:8–17
McIntosh RD, McClements KI, Dijkerman HC, Birchall D, Milner AD (2004) Preserved obstacle avoidance during reaching in patients with left visual neglect. Neuropyschologica 42:1107–1117
Melmoth DR, Grant S (2006) Advantages of binocular vision for the control of reaching and grasping. Exp Brain Res 171:371–388
Melmoth DR, Grant S (2012) Getting a grip: different actions and visual guidance of the thumb and finger in precision grasping. Exp Brain Res 222:265–276
Melmoth DR, Storoni M, Todd G, Finlay AL, Grant S (2007) Dissociation between vergence and binocular disparity cues in the control of prehension. Exp Brain Res 183:283–298
Melmoth DR, Finlay AL, Morgan MJ, Grant S (2009) Grasping deficits and adaptations in adults with stereo vision losses. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 50:3711–3720
Mon-Williams M, Dijkerman HC (1999) The use of vergence information in the programming of prehension. Exp Brain Res 128:578–582
Mon-Williams M, McIntosh RD (2000) A test between two hypotheses and a possible third way for the control of prehension. Exp Brain Res 134:268–273
Mon-Williams M, Tresilian JR, Coppard VL, Carson RG (2001) The effect of obstacle position on reach-to-grasp movements. Exp Brain Res 137:497–501
Oldfield RC (1971) The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologica 9:97–112
Pardhan S, Zuidhoek S (2013) Dual cognitive task affects reaching and grasping behavior in subjects with macular disorders. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 54:3281–3288
Pardhan S, Gonzalez-Alvarez C, Subramanian A (2011) How does the presence and duration of central visual impairment affect reaching and grasping movements? Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 31:233–239
Previc FH (1990) Functional specialization in the lower and upper visual fields in humans: its ecological origins and neurophysiological implications. Behav Brain Res 13:519–575
Prime SL, Marotta JJ (2013) Gaze strategies during visually-guided versus memory-guided grasping. Exp Brain Res 225:291–305
Pylyshyn Z, Storm R (1988) Tracking multiple independent targets: evidence for a parallel tracking mechanism. Spat Vis 3:179–197
Quinlan DJ, Culham JC (2007) fMRI reveals a preference for near viewing in the human parieto-occipital cortex. Neuroimage 36:167–187
Rice NJ, McIntosh RD, Schindler I, Mon-Williams M, Demonet JF, Milner AD (2006) Intact automatic avoidance of obstacles in patients with visual form agnosia. Exp Brain Res 174:176–188
Rosenbaum DA, Meulenbrook RJ, Vaughan J, Jansen C (2001) Posture-based motion planning: applications to grasping. Psychol Rev 108:709–734
Schlicht EJ, Schrater PR (2007) Effects of visual uncertainty on grasping movements. Exp Brain Res 182:47–57
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 7:779–784
Servos P, Goodale MA (1994) Binocular vision and the on-line control of human prehension. Exp Brain Res 98:119–127
Servos P, Goodale MA, Jakobson LS (1992) The role of binocular vision in prehension: a kinematic analysis. Vis Res 32:1513–1521
Singhal A, Culham JC, Chinellato E, Goodale MA (2007) Dual-task interference is greater in delayed grasping than in visually guided grasping. J Vis 7:1–12
Srivastava S, Orban GA, De Mazière PA, Janssen P (2009) A distinct representation of three-dimensional shape in macaque anterior intraparietal area: fast, metric and coarse. J Neurosci 29:10613–10626
Tipper SP, Howard LA, Jackson SR (1997) Selective reaching to grasp: evidence for distractor interference effects. Vis Cogn 4:1–38
Tombu M, Seiffert A (2008) Attentional costs in multiple-object tracking. Cognition 108:1–25
Tresilian JR (1998) Attention in action or obstruction of movement? A kinematic analysis of avoidance behavior in prehension. Exp Brain Res 120:352–368
Verhagen L, Dijkerman HC, Grol MJ, Toni I (2008) Perceptuo-motor interactions during prehension movements. J Neurosci 28:4726–4735
Verhagen L, Dijkerman HC, Medendorp WP, Toni I (2012) Cortical dynamics of sensorimotor integration during grasp planning. J Neurosci 32:4508–4519
Verheij R, Brenner E, Smeets JBJ (2012) Grasping kinematics from the perspective of individual digits: a modelling study. PLoS ONE 7(3):e33150. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0033150
Verheij R, Brenner E, Smeets JBJ (2014a) The influence of target object shape on maximum grip aperture in human grasping movements. Exp Brain Res 232:3569–3578
Verheij R, Brenner E, Smeets JBJ (2014b) Why does an obstacle just below the digits’ paths not influence a grasping movement while an obstacle to the side of their paths does? Exp Brain Res 232:103–112
Volcic R, Domini F (2014) The visibility of contact points influences grasping movements. Exp Brain Res 232:2997–3005
Voudouris D, Smeets JBJ, Brenner E (2012a) Do humans prefer to see their grasping points? J Motor Behav 44:295–304
Voudouris D, Smeets JBJ, Brenner E (2012b) Do obstacles affect the selection of grasping points? Hum Mov Sci 31:1090–1102
Watt SJ, Bradshaw MF (2000) Binocular cues are important in controlling the grasp but not the reach in natural prehension movements. Neuropsychologica 38:1473–1481
Watt SJ, Bradshaw MF (2002) Binocular information in the control of prehensile movements in multiple-object scenes. Spat Vis 15:141–155
Watt SJ, Bradshaw MF (2003) The visual control of reaching and grasping: binocular disparity and motion parallax. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 29:404–415
Wing AM, Fraser C (1983) The contribution of the thumb to reaching movements. Q J Exp Psychol 35A:297–309
Yantis S (1992) Multielement visual tracking: attention and perceptual organization. Cogn Psychol 24:295–340
Acknowledgments
Thanks to TrackSys (Nottingham, UK) and Michael Morgan for loans of gaze recording equipment, and to Ken Cocker, Asim Hyder, Dean Melmoth, Keval Sejpar and Colin Vallance for help with the experiments. This study was supported by Grants 066282 and 093280/Z/10/Z from the Wellcome Trust.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Grant, S. Gaze–grasp coordination in obstacle avoidance: differences between binocular and monocular viewing. Exp Brain Res 233, 3489–3505 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-015-4421-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-015-4421-7