Visual dominance in the cross-modal kinesthetic to kinesthetic plus visual feedback condition

In previous studies subjects who have learned a positioning response with kinesthetic feedback tended to make greater errors when visual feedback was provided during later trials. These subjects have always performed with both kinesthetic and visual feedback available. This study determined whether subjects with only visual feedback would produce errors similar to those who received kinesthetic plus visual feedback. Blindfolded subjects learned to move a handle to a criterion location with knowledge of results following each trial. Subjects then were assigned to one of three experimental groups, with only kinesthetic feedback, with kinesthetic plus visual feedback, or with only visual feedback. Subjects had 9 trials without knowledge of results in these feedback conditions. When visual feedback was available, subjects tended to make longer response errors. This finding replicates previous studies. Also, the similarity of performances from the conditions with visual feedback indicated the dominance of visual information in the condition with kinesthetic plus visual feedback.     

Visual tilt normalization: The method of kinesthetic matching

Changes in the apparent tilt of a visual line over time were tracked by matching the orientation of a rod held in the hands. The degree of overestimation of 20-deg tilts diminished over time by about 2 deg. This occurred even though the adaptation line was exposed intermittently with a 1∶3 on/off ratio.     

Central visual persistences: I. Visual and kinesthetic interactions

Phenomena associated with 'central visual persistences' (CPs) are new to both medical and psychological literature. Five subjects have reported similar CPs: positive afterimages following brief fixation of high-contrast objects or drawings and eye closure. CPs duplicate shapes and colors of single objects, lasting for about 15 s. Unlike retinal afterimages, CPs do not move with the eyes but are stable in extrapersonal space during head or body rotations. CPs may reflect sustained neural activity in neurons of association cortex, which mediate object perception. A remarkable finding is that CPs can be moved in any direction by the (unseen) hand holding the original seen object. Moreover, a CP once formed will 'jump' into an extended hand and 'stick' in that hand as it moves about. The apparent size of a CP of a single object is determined by the size of the gap between finger and thumb, even when no object is touched. These CPs can be either magnified or minified via the grip of the extended hand. The felt orientation of the hand-held object will also determine the orientation of the CP seen in that hand. Thus, kinesthetic signals from hand and arm movements can determine perceived location, size, and orientation of CPs. A neural model based on physiological studies of premotor, temporal, parietal, and prefrontal cortices is proposed to account for these novel phenomena.     

Effector localization and transfer of reactive inhibition

An experimental test was made of Hull's (1943) notions that reactive inhibition is effector-specific and that it has primary negative motivational properties. Four groups of 20 subjects (10 males and 10 females in each) executed two segments of continuous right-hand practice on a mirror-tracking task. The two segments were separated either by 0 min rest, 5 min rest, 5 min continuous right-hand practice on rotary pursuit, or 5 min continuous left-hand practice on rotary pursuit. Effects of interpolated conditions were measured in terms of main-task reminiscence arid initial post-treatment performance. When interpolated practice was conducted with the right hand, reminiscence and post-treatment performance were significantly depressed relative to the rest effect, but not when interpolated practice was conducted with the left hand. Thus, Hull's views were supported, while competing views, such as the task specificity concept of lr and the consolidation theory of reminiscence, were impugned.     

Visual and motor effects in inhibition of return

Inhibition of return (IOR) refers to slowed reaction times (RTs) when a target appears in the same rather than a different location as a preceding stimulus. The present study tested the hypothesis that IOR reflects a motor bias rather than a perceptual deficit. Two signals (S1 and S2) were presented on each trial. These signals were peripheral onsets or central arrows. The responses required to S1 and S2 were, respectively, no response-manual, manual-manual, saccadic-manual, no response-saccadic, manual-saccadic, and saccadic-saccadic. Uniting perceptual and motor bias views of IOR, the results demonstrated inhibition for responding to (a) peripheral signals when the eyes remained fixed (slowed visual processing) and (b) both peripheral and central signals when the eyes moved (slowed motor production). However, the results also emphasized that the nature of IOR depends fundamentally on the response modality used to reveal its influence.     

Visual and phonological components of working memory in children

Previous studies have shown that young children's immediate memory for a short series of drawings of objects is mediated by a visual component of working memory, whereas older children rely chiefly upon a phonological component. Three experiments investigated the hypothesis that older children rely also, but to a lesser extent, on visual working memory. Experiment 1 confirmed previous evidence that 11-year-olds' memory is disrupted by phonemic similarity of object names, but is unaffected by visual similarity of the objects themselves. However, when articulatory suppression was used to prevent phonological coding, levels of recall were sensitive to visual rather than phonemic similarity. Experiment 2 compared the effects of interpolating an auditory-verbal or a visual postlist task on memory for drawings viewed either with or without suppression. The visual task had a clear disruptive effect only in the suppression condition, where it interfered selectively with recall of the most recent item. Experiment 3 compared the effects of interpolating an auditory-verbal or a mixed-modality (visual-auditory) postlist task when subjects were not required to suppress. There was greater interference from the mixed-modality task, and this effect was confined to the last item presented. These experiments are taken as confirming the presence of a small but reliable contribution from visual memory in 11-year-old children's recall. As in younger children, visual working memory in 11-year-olds is sensitive to visual similarity and is responsible for a final-item visual recency effect. The results also show that older children's use of visual working memory is usually masked by the more pervasive phonological component of recall. Some implications for the structure of working memory and its development are discussed.     

Interdigital transfer of kinesthetic after-effects

Two experiments investigated the effect of using a different finger for inspection (I) than is used in making judgments on the size of a kinesthetic aftereffect (KAE). Experiment I investigated transfer of I stimulation of the ring finger to judgments made with the index finger, A control group used the index finger for both judgments and I period. Results indicated significant KAE for both groups. Experiment II replicated Experiment I except the second finger was used to test for transfer of I stimulation to judgments made with the index finger. Results indicated KAE for only the control group which used the index finger for both judgments and I stimulation.     

Time-dependent effects of kinesthetic input

Sensory input can be used by the nervous system to control the spatial parameters of motor responses (e.g., distance, velocity, and direction) by initializing these parameters before movement onset and then by adjusting these parameters during movement. Sensory input can also be used to trigger movements. In the experiments reported in this paper, we compared the effects of kinesthetic input on a triggered motor response when the kinesthetic input was generated at different times relative to the onset of the motor response. Human subjects responded to a visual stimulus by intentionally increasing elbow torque to a target level. Kinesthetic input was generated by unexpectedly rotating each subject's elbow 100 ms before the onset of the intentional torque response (early) or coincident with the onset of the intentional torque response (late). The effect of early kinesthetic input on the intentional torque response markedly differed from the effect of late kinesthetic input. The effect of early kinesthetic input was relatively independent of the direction of elbow rotation, had a different dependence on the amplitude of rotation, and required a shorter duration of rotation compared to the effect of late kinesthetic input. These differences in the effects of early and late kinesthetic input might be related to the initialization, triggering, and adjustment of motor responses.     

Encoding of kinesthetic extent information

The difference in codability of kinesthetic extent cues for experimenter-determined vs. subject-determined standards was investigated. The task involved moving a slide along a linear track a distance of one-half the total distance of the track. This distance (the standard) was then reproduced. During the presentation of the standard, reaction time to an auditory probe was recorded. One group of subjects determined their own standard (active condition), while the other group moved the slide to a stop located at the standard distance (constrained condition). All subjects were told that the standard was one-half the total distance. A more active encoding process was hypothesized to occur in the active condition which would be reflected in increased reaction time to the probe. The results did not support the attention hypothesis, in that probe reaction times were not significantly different for the two groups. Rather, the data suggested that the important variable in determining the codability of extent cues was the availability of a strategy and not whether the experimenter or the subject determined the standard.

     

Interdigital transfer of kinesthetic after-effects

Two experiments investigated the effect of using a different finger for inspection (I) than is used in making judgments on the size of a kinesthetic aftereffect (KAE). Experiment I investigated transfer of I stimulation of the ring finger to judgments made with the index finger, A control group used the index finger for both judgments and 1 period. Results indicated significant KAE for both groups. Experiment II replicated Experiment I except the second finger was used to test for transfer of I stimulation to judgments made with the index finger. Results indicated KAE for only the control group which used the index finger for both judgments and 1 stimulation.     

The kinesthetic fusion effect: Perceptual elimination of spatial discordance in the kinesthetic modality

Three experiments in intrasensory kinesthetic discordance are reported. The treatment required both arms to be outstretched in the midsagittal plane. In the absence of vision, a finger of one hand depressed a button that caused a probe to touch the other arm 12.7 cm closer to the body than the position of the finger. This difference was at first clearly sensed, but very rapidly the disparate positions were perceived to be identical: We have called this “the kinesthetic fusion effect.” It was also shown that a delay of up to 4 sec in probe onset after the finger depressed the button did not diminish the extent of fusion. The phenomenon gave rise to a predictable aftereffect, in which a probe directly opposite to the active finger was sensed to be farther away than the finger. The results were not due either to joint adaptation or to postural aftereffects.     

Visual versus kinesthetic mental imagery: Efficacy for the retention and transfer of a closed motor skill in young children

The main purposes of this study were (a) to compare the effects of mental imagery combined with physical practise and specific physical practise on the retention and transfer of a closed motor skill in young children; (b) to determine the mental imagery (visual vs. kinesthetic), which is the most efficient for retention and transfer of a closed motor skill; and (c) to verify the relationship between movement image vividness and motor performance. As for the secondary purpose, it was to compare the effects of gender on motor learning. Participants (n = 96) were selected from 3 primary schools. These participants were divided into 6 groups and submitted to different experimental conditions. The experimental task required the participants to throw, with the nondominant hand (left hand), a ball toward a target composed of 3 concentric circles. The results demonstrated that performance obtained by the mental imagery (visual or kinesthetic) combined with physical practise group was, during the retention phase, equivalent to that produced by the specific physical practise group but significantly superior during the transfer of closed motor skill. These results showed the potential benefits of mental imagery as a retention strategy intended for motor skills and performance enhancement. Such results could be explained by the similarity of 3 principal functional evidences shared by mental and physical practise: behavioural, central, and peripheral (as suggested by Holmes & Collins, 2001). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2008 APA, all rights reserved).