CONTACT US: Contact info
|
Citation |
Mendoza JE, Elliott D, Meegan DV, Lyons JL, Welsh TN. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 2006; 32(2): 413-422. |
|
Affiliation |
Department of Kinesiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. |
|
Copyright |
(Copyright © 2006, American Psychological Association) |
|
DOI |
|
PMID |
16634679 |
|
Abstract |
Two experiments used Müller-Lyer stimuli to test the predictions of the planning-control model (S. Glover, 2002) for aiming movements. In Experiment 1, participants aimed to stimuli that either remained the same or changed upon movement initiation. Experiment 2 was identical except that the duration of visual feedback for online control was manipulated. The authors found that the figures visible during movement planning and online control had additive effects on endpoint bias, even when participants had ample time to use visual feedback to modify their movements (Experiment 2). These findings are problematic not only for the planning-control model but also for A. D. Milner and M. A. Goodale's (1995) two visual system explanation of illusory bias. Although our results are consistent with the idea that a single representation is used for perception, movement planning, and online control (e.g., V. H. Franz, 2001), other work from our laboratory and elsewhere suggests that the manner in which space is coded depends on constraints associated with the specific task, such as the visual cues available to the performer. Language: en |