Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Grasping a 2D object: terminal haptic feedback supports an absolute visuo-haptic calibration

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Experimental Brain Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Grasping a three-dimensional (3D) object results in the specification of motor output via absolute size information. In contrast, the impoverished visual cues (e.g., binocular and vergence) associated with grasping a two-dimensional (2D) object are reported to render aperture formation via an object’s perceptual and relative visual features. It is, however, important to recognize that 3D and 2D grasping differ not only in terms of their visual properties, but also because the latter does not entail the provision of haptic feedback. As such, the present work examined whether haptic feedback influences the nature of the information supporting 2D grasping. Participants grasped differently sized 3D objects (i.e., 3D task) and completed a ‘traditional’ 2D grasping task to line drawings without receiving haptic feedback (i.e., 2DH− task). As well, we included a separate condition using the same objects as the 2DH− task; however, the experimenter placed a 3D object (i.e., one corresponding to the size of the 2D object) between the thumb and forefinger of participants’ grasping limb once they completed their response (i.e., 2DH+ task). Thus, the 2DH+ task provided haptic feedback related to absolute object size. Notably, we computed just-noticeable-difference (JND) scores to determine whether the different tasks adhered to, or violated, the relative psychophysical principles of Weber’s law. JNDs for the 2DH− task adhered to Weber’s law, whereas 3D and 2DH+ tasks violated the law. Thus, results evince that 2DH− and 2DH+ tasks are specified via relative and absolute object size information, respectively. Accordingly, we propose that haptic feedback supports an absolute visuo-haptic calibration and contend that our results highlight the importance of multi-sensory cue integration in goal-directed grasping.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We report %tPGA so that our findings can be conceptualized within the well-known normalized time frame for PGA (i.e., 76 % of MT) (see Jeannerod 1984). That said, the results and interpretation for absolute time to PGA mirrored those of %tPGA. In particular, results yielded main effects for task, F(2,34) = 15.94, p < 0.001, η 2p  = 0.48, and object size, F(3,51) = 8.18, p < 0.001, η 2p  = 0.32: time to PGA occurred earlier for the 3D (515 ms, SD = 45) compared to the 2DH− (585 ms, SD = 69) and 2DH+ (577 ms, SD = 87) tasks [ts(17) = 5.69 and 3.69, ps < 0.001] which did not differ (t(17) < 1), and values increased linearly with increasing object size [only linear effect significant: F(1,17) = 11.08, p < 0.01].

  2. Although post hoc analyses showed that PGAs for the 20-mm object did not reliably differ between the 2DH− and 2DH+ tasks, Fig. 3 shows that the mean value for the latter task was larger. Thus, the direction of the difference between the 2DH− and 2DH+ tasks for the 20-mm object is consistent with the statistically reliable between-tasks differences reported for the larger object sizes used here (i.e., 30, 40, and 50 mm).

References

  • Bingham G, Coats R, Mon-Williams M (2007) Natural prehension in trials without haptic feedback but only when calibration is allowed. Neuropsychologia 45:288–294

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brainard DH (1997) The psychophysics toolbox. Spat Vis 10:433–436

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cavina-Pratesi C, Kuhn G, Ietswaart M, Milner AD (2011) The magic grasp: motor expertise in deception. PLoS ONE 6:e16568

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Christiansen JH, Christensen J, Grünbaum T, Kyllingsbæk S (2014) A common representation of spatial features drives action and perception: grasping and judging object features within trials. PLoS ONE 9:e94744

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Cumming G (2013) Understanding the new statistics: effect sizes, confidence intervals, and meta-analysis. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Davarpanah Jazi S, Heath M (2014) Weber’s law in tactile grasping and manual estimation: feedback-dependent evidence for functionally distinct processing streams. Brain Cogn 86C:32–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davarpanah Jazi S, Hosang S, Heath M (2015a) Memory delay and haptic feedback influence the dissociation of tactile cues for perception and action. Neuropsychologia 71:91–100

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Davarpanah Jazi S, Yau M, Westwood DA, Heath M (2015b) Pantomime-grasping: the ‘return’ of haptic feedback supports the absolute specification of object size. Exp Brain Res 233:2029–2040

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ernst MO, Banks MS (2002) Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashion. Nature 415:429–433

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fitts PM (1954) The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. J Exp Psychol Gen 47:381–391

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Freud E, Ganel T (2015) Visual control of action directed toward two-dimensional objects relies on holistic processing of object shape. Psychon Bull Rev 22:1377–1382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fukui T, Inui T (2013) How vision affects kinematic properties of pantomimed prehension movements. Front Psychol 4:44

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Ganel T, Chajut E, Algom D (2008) Visual coding for action violates fundamental psychophysical principles. Curr Biol 18:R599–R601

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ganel T, Freud E, Chajut E, Algom D (2012) Accurate visuomotor control below the perceptual threshold of size discrimination. PLoS ONE 7:e36253

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson JJ (1986) The ecological approach to visual perception. Routledge, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodale MA (2011) Transforming vision into action. Vision Res 51:1567–1587

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Goodale M, Milner D (2013) Sight unseen: an exploration of conscious and unconscious vision. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Goodale MA, Jakobson LS, Keillor JM (1994) Differences in the visual control of pantomimed and natural grasping movements. Neuropsychologia 32:1159–1178

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Heath M, Mulla A, Holmes SA, Smuskowitz LR (2011) The visual coding of grip aperture shows an early but not late adherence to Weber’s law. Neurosci Lett 490:200–204

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Heath M, Holmes SA, Mulla A, Binsted G (2012) Grasping time does not influence the early adherence of aperture shaping to Weber’s law. Front Hum Neurosci 6:332

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Holmes SA, Heath M (2013) Goal-directed grasping: the dimensional properties of an object influence the nature of the visual information mediating aperture shaping. Brain Cogn 82:18–24

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Holmes SA, Mulla A, Binsted G, Heath M (2011) Visually and memory-guided grasping: aperture shaping exhibits a time-dependent scaling to Weber’s law. Vision Res 51:1941–1948

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Holmes SA, Lohmus J, McKinnon S, Mulla A, Heath M (2013) Distinct visual cues mediate aperture shaping for grasping and pantomime-grasping tasks. J Mot Behav 45:431–439

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 126:2463–2475

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Janssen P, Vogels R, Orban GA (2000) Selectivity for 3D shape that reveals distinct areas within macaque inferior temporal cortex. Science 288:2054–2056

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jeannerod M (1984) The timing of natural prehension movements. J Mot Behav 16:235–254

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kanwisher N, Chun MM, McDermott J, Ledden PJ (1996) Functional imaging of human visual recognition. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res 5:55–67

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kwok RM, Braddick OJ (2003) When does the Titchener Circles illusion exert an effect on grasping? Two- and three-dimensional targets. Neuropsychologia 41:932–940

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lederman SJ, Klatzky RL (2009) Haptic perception: a tutorial. Atten Percept Psychophys 71:1439–1459

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lemay M, Proteau L (2001) A distance effect in a manual aiming task to remembered targets: a test of three hypotheses. Exp Brain Res 140:357–368

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Loftus GR, Masson ME (1994) Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs. Psychon Bull Rev 1:476–490

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Maunsell JH, Van Essen DC (1983) Functional properties of neurons in middle temporal visual area of the macaque monkey. II. Binocular interactions and sensitivity to binocular disparity. J Neurophysiol 49:1148–1167

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Milner AD, Ganel T, Goodale MA (2012) Does grasping in patient D.F. depend on vision? Trends Cogn Sci 16:256–257 (discussion 258–259)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pedhazur EJ (1997) Multiple regression in behavioral research: explanation and prediction. Harcourt Brace College Publishers, Orlando

    Google Scholar 

  • Pettypiece CE, Goodale MA, Culham JC (2010) Integration of haptic and visual size cues in perception and action revealed through cross-modal conflict. Exp Brain Res 201:863–873

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schenk T (2012) No dissociation between perception and action in patient DF when haptic feedback is withdrawn. J Neurosci 32:2013–2017

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Smeets JB, Brenner E (1999) A new view on grasping. Mot Control 3:237–271

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Snow JC, Pettypiece CE, McAdam TD, McLean AD, Stroman PW, Goodale MA, Culham JC (2011) Bringing the real world into the fMRI scanner: repetition effects for pictures versus real objects. Sci Rep 1:130

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Turnbull OH, Driver J, McCarthy RA (2004) 2D but not 3D: pictorial-depth deficits in a case of visual agnosia. Cortex 40:723–738

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Viau A, Feldman AG, McFadyen BJ, Levin MF (2004) Reaching in reality and virtual reality: a comparison of movement kinematics in healthy subjects and in adults with hemiparesis. J Neuroeng Rehabil 1:11

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Vishton PM, Rea JG, Cutting JE, Nuñez LN (1999) Comparing effects of the horizontal-vertical illusion on grip scaling and judgment: relative versus absolute, not perception versus action. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 25:1659–1672

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Westwood DA, Chapman CD, Roy EA (2000) Pantomimed actions may be controlled by the ventral visual stream. Exp Brain Res 130:545–548

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Westwood DA, Danckert J, Servos P, Goodale MA (2002) Grasping two-dimensional images and three-dimensional objects in visual-form agnosia. Exp Brain Res 144:262–267

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Whitwell RL, Buckingham G (2013) Reframing the action and perception dissociation in DF: haptics matters, but how? J Neurophysiol 109:621–624

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Whitwell RL, Milner AD, Cavina-Pratesi C, Byrne CM, Goodale MA (2014) DF’s visual brain in action: the role of tactile cues. Neuropsychologia 55:41–50

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by a Discovery Grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and Faculty Scholar and Major Academic Development Fund Awards from the University of Western Ontario. SH was supported by an Undergraduate Student Research Award from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Health Studies, University of Western Ontario, London, ON, N6A 3K7, Canada

    Stephanie Hosang

  2. School of Kinesiology, University of Western Ontario, London, ON, N6A 3K7, Canada

    Jillian Chan, Shirin Davarpanah Jazi & Matthew Heath

  3. Graduate Program in Neuroscience, University of Western Ontario, London, ON, N6A 3K7, Canada

    Matthew Heath

Authors
  1. Stephanie Hosang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jillian Chan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shirin Davarpanah Jazi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Matthew Heath
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthew Heath.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hosang, S., Chan, J., Davarpanah Jazi, S. et al. Grasping a 2D object: terminal haptic feedback supports an absolute visuo-haptic calibration. Exp Brain Res 234, 945–954 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-015-4521-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-015-4521-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation