Limits...
Effects of delayed visual feedback on grooved pegboard test performance.

Fujisaki W - Front Psychol (2012)

Bottom Line: This is similar to the critical interval found in audition.When the reliability of spatial information was reduced, the data lay between those of experiments 1 and 2, and that a gradual decrease in performance partially reappeared.These results further support the notion that two mechanisms operate under delayed visual feedback.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Human Technology Research Institute, National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan.

ABSTRACT
Using four experiments, this study investigates what amount of delay brings about maximal impairment under delayed visual feedback and whether a critical interval, such as that in audition, also exists in vision. The first experiment measured the Grooved Pegboard test performance as a function of visual feedback delays from 120 to 2120 ms in 16 steps. Performance sharply decreased until about 490 ms, then more gradually until 2120 ms, suggesting that two mechanisms were operating under delayed visual feedback. Since delayed visual feedback differs from delayed auditory feedback in that the former induces not only temporal but also spatial displacements between motor and sensory feedback, this difference could also exist in the mechanism responsible for spatial displacement. The second experiment was hence conducted to provide simultaneous haptic feedback together with delayed visual feedback to inform correct spatial position. The disruption was significantly ameliorated when information about spatial position was provided from a haptic source. The sharp decrease in performance of up to approximately 300 ms was followed by an almost flat performance. This is similar to the critical interval found in audition. Accordingly, the mechanism that caused the sharp decrease in performance in experiments 1 and 2 was probably mainly responsible for temporal disparity and is common across different modality-motor combinations, while the other mechanism that caused a rather gradual decrease in performance in experiment 1 was mainly responsible for spatial displacement. In experiments 3 and 4, the reliability of spatial information from the haptic source was reduced by wearing a glove or using a tool. When the reliability of spatial information was reduced, the data lay between those of experiments 1 and 2, and that a gradual decrease in performance partially reappeared. These results further support the notion that two mechanisms operate under delayed visual feedback.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Results obtained in experiment 1. (A) This graph plots the pegboard task as a function of the visual feedback delays from 120 to 2120 ms in 16 steps. (B) This graph shows the two best-fit regression lines and their intersection points.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3297075&req=5

Figure 4: Results obtained in experiment 1. (A) This graph plots the pegboard task as a function of the visual feedback delays from 120 to 2120 ms in 16 steps. (B) This graph shows the two best-fit regression lines and their intersection points.

Mentions: Figure 4A shows the performance of the pegboard task (number of pegs successfully placed within 1 min) as a function of the visual feedback delays from 120 to 2120 ms in 16 steps. A one-way repeated ANOVA showed the significant main effect of visual feedback delays [F(15,345) = 160.911, p < 0.00000000001], while a Bonferroni multiple comparison test indicated that the performance decreased as more visual feedback delays were inserted (Table 1).


Effects of delayed visual feedback on grooved pegboard test performance.

Fujisaki W - Front Psychol (2012)

Results obtained in experiment 1. (A) This graph plots the pegboard task as a function of the visual feedback delays from 120 to 2120 ms in 16 steps. (B) This graph shows the two best-fit regression lines and their intersection points.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3297075&req=5

Figure 4: Results obtained in experiment 1. (A) This graph plots the pegboard task as a function of the visual feedback delays from 120 to 2120 ms in 16 steps. (B) This graph shows the two best-fit regression lines and their intersection points.
Mentions: Figure 4A shows the performance of the pegboard task (number of pegs successfully placed within 1 min) as a function of the visual feedback delays from 120 to 2120 ms in 16 steps. A one-way repeated ANOVA showed the significant main effect of visual feedback delays [F(15,345) = 160.911, p < 0.00000000001], while a Bonferroni multiple comparison test indicated that the performance decreased as more visual feedback delays were inserted (Table 1).

Bottom Line: This is similar to the critical interval found in audition.When the reliability of spatial information was reduced, the data lay between those of experiments 1 and 2, and that a gradual decrease in performance partially reappeared.These results further support the notion that two mechanisms operate under delayed visual feedback.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Human Technology Research Institute, National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan.

ABSTRACT
Using four experiments, this study investigates what amount of delay brings about maximal impairment under delayed visual feedback and whether a critical interval, such as that in audition, also exists in vision. The first experiment measured the Grooved Pegboard test performance as a function of visual feedback delays from 120 to 2120 ms in 16 steps. Performance sharply decreased until about 490 ms, then more gradually until 2120 ms, suggesting that two mechanisms were operating under delayed visual feedback. Since delayed visual feedback differs from delayed auditory feedback in that the former induces not only temporal but also spatial displacements between motor and sensory feedback, this difference could also exist in the mechanism responsible for spatial displacement. The second experiment was hence conducted to provide simultaneous haptic feedback together with delayed visual feedback to inform correct spatial position. The disruption was significantly ameliorated when information about spatial position was provided from a haptic source. The sharp decrease in performance of up to approximately 300 ms was followed by an almost flat performance. This is similar to the critical interval found in audition. Accordingly, the mechanism that caused the sharp decrease in performance in experiments 1 and 2 was probably mainly responsible for temporal disparity and is common across different modality-motor combinations, while the other mechanism that caused a rather gradual decrease in performance in experiment 1 was mainly responsible for spatial displacement. In experiments 3 and 4, the reliability of spatial information from the haptic source was reduced by wearing a glove or using a tool. When the reliability of spatial information was reduced, the data lay between those of experiments 1 and 2, and that a gradual decrease in performance partially reappeared. These results further support the notion that two mechanisms operate under delayed visual feedback.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus