Multiple information sources in interceptive timing

This study was designed to explore the limitations of tau (τ) as an explanatory construct for the timing of interceptive action. This was achieved by examining the effects of environmental structure and binocular vision on the timing of the grasp in a simple one-handed catch. In two experiments, subjects were required to catch luminous balls of different diameters (4, 6, 8 and 10 cm) in a completely darkened room. In the first experiment the influence of the presence vs. absence of an environmental background structure (both under monocular viewing) was tested, and in the second experiment the influence of monocular vs. binocular vision was examined. It was found that irrespective of the presence of environmental structure, an effect of ball size occurred in the monocular viewing conditions. That is, in monocular viewing conditions the grasp was initiated and completed earlier for the larger balls as compared to the smaller ones, while in the binocular viewing condition subjects behaved in accordance with a constant time to contact strategy: no effects of ball size were found. It is concluded that under binocular viewing a binocular information source is used, while in the monocular viewing condition a lower order information source like image size or image velocity is probably involved.     

Catching and matching bars with different orientations

The hypothesis that perception enslaves action is examined by assessing whether systematic distortions in perceptual judgments are reflected by inaccuracies in catching. In the first experiment, participants had to align manually the orientation of a reference bar placed at different distances in the frontoparallel plane. In the second experiment participants had to catch differently orientated moving bars, which became invisible at different distances from the interception point. In the matching experiment, systematic errors in the alignment of orientation were found in particular for oblique orientations, the magnitude of which increased with increasing distance of the reference bar. The inaccuracies in the final hand orientation during the catching task, however, did not mirror this pattern of deviations. The findings are interpreted to be more consistent with recent views that vision for perception (i.e., matching) and vision for action (i.e., catching) are dissociated than with the view that perception enslaves action.     

The Effect of Load Uncertainty on Neuromotor Control in Catching: Gender Differences and Short Foreperiods

Abstract

To reveal how the CNS copes with load uncertainty in catching, electromyography (EMG) was recorded in 15 females and 14 males while catching visually identical balls of known and unknown weights under varied (1–10?s) and constant (1?s) foreperiods (warning time). EMG integrals, which represented total muscle activity, were computed for three time intervals prior to the catch (anticipatory), and one interval after (compensatory). Load uncertainty caused the CNS to utilize an anticipatory strategy in several muscles, primarily during the ball-flight interval, characterized by preparation to catch balls of unknown weight by utilizing an average of 99.7% of the muscle activation used to catch the heaviest ball under the known weight condition. The constant 1?s foreperiod, which permitted precise temporal anticipation of ball release, did not influence the anticipatory strategy adopted by the CNS to cope with load uncertainty. There were no observed differences in the neuromotor control used by men and women to manage load uncertainty in catching, although there was an interesting difference in the way men and women employed the triceps to prepare to catch balls of a known weight.