eduzhai > Socail Sciences > Psychology >

Staring at the target: the visual direction guides the trajectory of the motion system

  • sky
  • (0) Download
  • 20211101
  • Save International Journal of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences 2016, 6(4): 194-197 DOI: 10.5923/j.ijpbs.20160604.03 Keep Your Eyes on the Target: Visual Orientation Leads Trajectories of the Motor System Bassem Khalaf1,2 1School of Psychology, Cognition Institute, University of Plymouth, UK 2AL-Mustansiriyah University, Baghdad, Iraq Abstract This paper presents a dual task for visual orientation during performance that is based on a compatibility task. The question of this study is how visual orientation leads the motor system in the same or different direction during execution of the task; however, the relation between cognition and motor control is still poorly understood. 40 students participated in this experiment. The first task was to keep one’s eyes on the target during a motor task, and the second task was to look in a different direction during performance. Participants were asked to keep their eyes on the target during performance; they were subsequently asked to keep their eyes at obverse orientation during performance. Although it is not known whether looking at the same or different location has to be oriented to action for these processes in real life, the results found that visual orientation in the same direction during performance resulted in a lower error rate than obverse visual orientation during the motor task. Keywords Motor Imagery, Performance, Trajectories, and Visual Orientation 1. Introduction Much of the cognitive psychology research over the last decades has investigated the cognitive and motor system factors associated with athletic achievements in an attempt to identify the eyes’ movement through the target or visual orientation that leads compatible performance of motor task successfully and affect eye movements in natural visual behavior (Kilpela, Olivers, & Theeuwes, 2013). The relation between cognitive and motor control is still poorly understood, but visual perception is more dependent on attention, i.e. you do not see objects to which you are not paying attention. In fact, we look without seeing, therefore attention could be bottom-up or top-down whether high-level or low-level perception. This paper will examine how visual orientation directs the motor task or motor control based on a compatible task of Simon effect in real life. There are two visions: the first is vision for action and the second is vision for perception. In this paper, the focus is on the vision for action and how vision leads the motor system; this distinction between vision for perception and vision for action is made in order to capture the information and programming before and during the motor task. More specifically, vision for perception is to capture information whilst vision for action is to capture idea-motor * Corresponding author: (Bassem Khalaf) Published online at Copyright © 2016 Scientific & Academic Publishing. All Rights Reserved action-planning and pre-movement during programming and the online control of trajectories motor task, although the visual task is in fact visual metrics required for action. However, many studies revealed that vision controls the action and also triggers the intention (Lang, Apps, Bengtsson, Cerminara, De Zeeuw, Ebner, Xiao, 2016; Lohse, Jones, Healy, & Sherwood, 2014; Vainio, Ellis, & Tucker. 2007; Sprague, Ballard, & Robinson, 2007). There are three essential aspects for any action: the first one is planning to achieve the goal; the second stage is the pre-movement programming to implement that decision, and the third stage is the online control during execution. Nonetheless, the focus of this paper will be on pre-movement and the online control. Many studies confirmed that the motor system is impacted or triggered by motor imagery or intention, as well as by the auditory system, whether positive or negative language (Cartmill, Beilock, & Goldin-Meadow, 2012; Le Bel, Pineda, & Sharma, 2009; Debarnot, Sperduti, Di Rienzo, & Guillot, 2014; Tipper, 2010; Melorose, Perroy, & Careas, 2015). For example, Vainio and his colleagues pointed out that visual attention in action priming (Vainio, Ellis, & Tucker, 2007). A compatibility task is used in this paper based on visual orientation during the motor task, whether in the same direction or obverse direction, so the Simon effect refers to the finding that reaction time will be faster when response and stimulus are in a compatible (similar) location (Simon and Rudell, 1976; Simon and Small, 1969; for review, see Hommel, 2010). For instance, participants are faster in pressing a button with the left hand if they see a stimulus that is also on the left. It follows that when participants respond International Journal of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences 2016, 6(4): 194-197 195 with the right hand, they are faster when they see a stimulus that is also on the right side. Compatibility tasks have also been used to study how witnessing somebody else carry out an action affects one’s own responses. Brass, Bekkering, Wohlschlager and Prinz (2000) studied the compatibility when participants saw either an index or a middle finger being lifted on the screen, and when participants had to make the same movements themselves. They discovered that participants reacted faster to compatible trials (the same finger lifted as on the screen) than to incompatible trials (a different finger). Bach, Peatfield, and Tipper (2007) studied observation of actions that were performed with different parts of the body, namely feet (kicking a soccer ball) and fingers (typing on computer keyboard). It was found that participants were significantly faster and more accurate in responding with the foot when seeing the kicking action, and finger responses were faster and more accurate when seeing the typing action. There is ample evidence for such an automatic translation of perceptual stimuli into motor actions. These effects are typically investigated with stimulus response compatibility experiments. A classic example is the Simon task. Participants see stimuli appearing on the left and right side of the screen. However, the stimulus position is irrelevant to the task; they only have to pay attention to the stimulus color. Participants are instructed to press a ‘left’ key, for example, if the stimulus is blue, and a ‘right’ key if the stimulus is red. The Simon effect refers to the well-substantiated finding that reaction time will be faster when response and stimulus are in a compatible (similar) location (Simon and Rudell, 1976; Simon and Small, 1969; for review, see Hommel, 2011). Thus, participants are faster in pressing a button with the left hand, if they see a stimulus that is also on the left. When participants respond with the right hand, they are faster when they see a stimulus that is also on the right side. Another example comes from Kunde (2001): subjects perform either soft or forceful presses on a touch-sensitive plate. Each key press produces either a quiet or loud tone, respectively. Consistent with ideomotor theory, in blocks of trials in which the to-be-produced tone effect always matched the to-be-produced manual key press in intensity (e.g., soft press resulting in a quiet tone), response times were faster than in blocks in which the intensity of the tone effect did not always match the response intensity. Similar effects have now been reported for various stimulus features, such as orientation (Craighero Fadiga, Rizzolatti, & Umilta, 1999) and shape (Bach, Griffiths, Weigelt, & Tipper, 2010). The question of this paper is whether visual orientation affects the motor system during performance? If so, there will be more errors during performance in obverse orientation, whether the task is a closed skill or an open skill. were each run in individual 15-minutes sessions according to their age (22-25 years). All were registered at the Al-Mustansiriyah University; all volunteers were right-handed, all reported having normal or corrected-to-normal visual acuity, and were unaware of the purpose of the experiment. Materials, apparatus, procedure and design Each participant was tested separately. The experiment included two sessions; the first one was a penalty kick, which offered 20 attempts to kick a ball into the football net guarded by a goalkeeper. In 10 attempts, the participant kicked a ball with his eyes at the same orientation as the ball kick, and for the latter 10 attempts the participant kicked a ball at obverse orientation. This part of the experiment was designed to measure open skill. The second part of the experiment involved throwing a handball without a goalkeeper, also 20 attempts from free throw (9m) on frame hang up right angle 90. There was one 40x40cm frame on the right and one 40x40cm frame on the left side; the participant was told to throw a ball at the same orientation for 10 attempts, 5 attempts on the right side and 5 on the left side. Next the participant was instructed to throw a ball at obverse orientation for 10 attempts, 5 attempts on the right side and 5 attempts on the left side. This part of the experiment was designed to measure closed skill. 3. Result 0.5 0 Same Orientation Obverse Oreintatiion -0.5 Open Skill -1 Figure 1. Shows the mean of the open skill for same & obverse orientation 0.4 0.2 0 Same Orientation Obverse Orientation -0.2 2. Method Participants A total of 40 students participated in this experiment and Closed Skill -0.4 Figure 2. Shows the mean of the closed skill for same & obverse orientation 196 Bassem Khalaf: Keep Your Eyes on the Target: Visual Orientation Leads Trajectories of the Motor System Participants’ scores in the open skill with the same orientation was better than obverse orientation, and t tests showed what the advantage of same orientation is over obverse orientation based on t tests showed that analyzed data was significant t (19)=7.03, p<. 001 opened skill, (see figure 1). Also, the closed skill of the same orientation was better than obverse orientation, and the advantage for the same orientation was consistent for both open skill and closed skill t (19) = 6.13, p<. 001 but open skill was better than closed skill as shown (Fig.1 and Fig, 2.) 5. Conclusions This study revealed that visual orientation during motor task to improve performance- builds upon processes involved in trajectories of the motor system. In other words, the study revealed a continuity of processing among visual orientation, motor system and accuracy of shooting the ball forwards the goal, Also attention based on eye gaze needs to be directed towards the target. Therefore this study suggests that keeping the eyes on target during a motor task reduces error and is more compatible with the motor system. 4. Discussion These findings support the compatibility task, and are based on visual orientation that leads the motor system completely. Motor-visual or visual orientation collects information and impacts action planning that is integration of information about action goals. But on other side and according to motor-visual of dual-tasks that is response one tasks with one response, based on stimulus response mapping to one stimulus. Therefore obverse orientation of vision impairs trajectories of the motor system. The motor planning and motor control are based on motor-visual and motor imagery (Thomaschke, Hopkins, & Miall, 2012). It is known that the Simon effect is based on a compatibility task (Spironelli, Tagliabue, & Umiltà, 2009) so the compatibility task confirms that visual orientation leads the motor system, whether open skill or closed skill. Visual orientation impacts on motor imagery and keeps trajectories of motor tasks, while obverse orientation impairs trajectories because signals that are sent to the occipital loop are incompatible. On the other hand, the motor-visual dual task affects trajectories of motor tasks during online and execution of performance. Most of players used their eye movement or body language to camouflage or confuse goalkeeper, these procedures make motor system or trajectories of motor system under the pressing of multiple task, however one task is much better during motor tasks, because one motor task is support the foci attention and do more accuracy pre-performance and during motor task that is online and execution. As known that motor imagery or intention are trigger of action planning which is per-motor cortex of the brain, thence motor cortex receives signals from pre-motor cortex for execution perfromance (Bach, Allami, Tucker, & Ellis, 2014; Brass, Bekkering, Wohlschla, & Prinz, 2000). However, to do two tasks at the same time results in more errors based on dual task research. (Thomaschke, Hopkins, & Miall, 2012). In summary, this paper posed the question whether it is better to use body language based on eye movements that is obverse orientation of action goal during execution, or keep one’s eyes on the target. These findings confirmed that focussing on the goal during a motor task is better than obverse orientation of goal and dual task at the same time. REFERENCES [1] Bach, P., Allami, B. K., Tucker, M., & Ellis, R. (2014). Planning-related motor processes underlie mental practice and imitation learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 143(3), 1–18. doi:10.1037/a003. [2] Bach, P., Griffiths, D., Weigelt, M., & Tipper, S. P. (2010). Gesturing meaning: Non-action words activate the motor system. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 4, 214. [3] Bach, P., Peatweld, N. A., & Tipper, S. P. (2007). Focusing on body sites: the role of spatial attention in action perception. Experimental Brain Research, 509–517. [4] Borgomaneri, S., Gazzola, V., & Avenanti, A. (2012). Motor mapping of implied actions during perception of emotional body language. Brain Stimulation, 5(2), 70–6. doi:10.1016/j.brs.2012.03.011. [5] Braun, D. a, Mehring, C., & Wolpert, D. M. (2010). Structure learning in action. Behavioural Brain Research, 206(2), 157–65. doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2009.08.031. [6] Brass, M., Bekkering, H., Wohlschla, A., & Prinz, W. (2000). Compatibility between Observed and Executed Finger Movements: Comparing Symbolic, Spatial, and Imitative Cues. Brain and Cognition, 143, 124–143. doi:10.1006/brcg.2000.1225. [7] Cartmill, E. a, Beilock, S., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2012). A word in the hand: action, gesture and mental representation in humans and non-human primates. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 367(1585), 129–43. doi:10.1098/rstb.20 11.0162. [8] Craighero, L., Fadiga, L., Rizzolatti, G., & Umilta `, C. (1999). Action for perception: A motor-visual attentional effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 1673–1692. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.25.6. 1673. [9] Debarnot, U., Sperduti, M., Di Rienzo, F., & Guillot, A. (2014). Experts bodies, experts minds: How physical and mental training shape the brain. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8(May), 1–17. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00280 [10] Hommel, B. (2011). The Simon effect as tool and heuristic. Acta Psycho- logica, 136, 189–202. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.201 0.04.011. International Journal of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences 2016, 6(4): 194-197 197 [11] Kilpela, M., Olivers, C. N. L., & Theeuwes, J. (2013). The eyes like their targets on a stable background, 13, 1–11. doi:10.1167/13.6.5.doi [12] Lang, E. J., Apps, R., Bengtsson, F., Cerminara, N. L., De Zeeuw, C. I., Ebner, T. J., … Xiao, J. (2016). The Roles of the Olivocerebellar Pathway in Motor Learning and Motor Control. A Consensus Paper. The Cerebellum. doi:10.1007/s12311-016-0787-8. [13] Le Bel, R. M., Pineda, J. a, & Sharma, A. (2009). Motor-auditory-visual integration: The role of the human mirror neuron system in communication and communication disorders. Journal of Communication Disorders, 42(4), 299–304. [14] Lohse, K. R., Jones, M., Healy, A. F., & Sherwood, D. E. (2014). The role of attention in motor control. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 143(2), 930–48. [15] Melorose, J., Perroy, R., & Careas, S. (2015). the role of attention in motor control. Statewide Agricultural Land Use Baseline 2015, 1. [16] Orbán, G., & Wolpert, D. M. (2011). Representations of uncertainty in sensorimotor control. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 21(4), 629–35. [17] Rao, N. G., & Donoghue, J. P. (2014). Cue to action processing in motor cortex populations. Journal of Neurophysiology, 111(2), 441–53. [18] Spironelli, C., Tagliabue, M., & Umiltà, C. (2009). Response selection and attention orienting: a computational model of Simon effect asymmetries. Experimental Psychology, 56(4), 274–82. doi:10.1027/1618-3169.56.4.274. [19] Sprague, N., Ballard, D., & Robinson, A. L. (2007). Modeling Embodied Visual Behaviors. ACM Trans. Appl. Percpt, 4(2), 1–23. doi:10.1145/1265957.1265960. [20] Thomaschke, R., Hopkins, B., & Miall, R. C. (2012). The planning and control model (PCM) of motorvisual priming: reconciling motorvisual impairment and facilitation effects. Psychological Review, 119(2), 388–407. [21] Tipper, S. P. (2010). From observation to action simulation: the role of attention, eye-gaze, emotion, and body state. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology (2006), 63(11), 2081–105. doi:10.1080/17470211003624002. [22] Vainio, L., Ellis, R., & Tucker, M. (2007). The role of visual attention in action priming. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology (2006), 60(2), 241–61. [23] Villiger, M., Chandrasekharan, S., & Welsh, T. N. (2011). Activity of human motor system during action observation is modulated by object presence. Experimental Brain Research. Experimentelle Hirnforschung. Expérimentation Cérébrale, 209(1), 85–93.

... pages left unread,continue reading

Document pages: 4 pages

Please select stars to rate!


0 comments Sign in to leave a comment.

    Data loading, please wait...