title: Effects of pictorial cues on reaching depend on the distinctiveness of target objects.
abstract: There is an ongoing debate under what conditions learned object sizes influence visuomotor control under preserved stereovision. Using meaningful objects (matchboxes of locally well-known brands in the UK) a previous study has nicely shown that the recognition of these objects influences action programming by means of reach amplitude and grasp pre-shaping even under binocular vision. Using the same paradigm, we demonstrated that short-term learning of colour-size associations was not sufficient to induce any visuomotor effects under binocular viewing conditions. Now we used the same matchboxes, for which the familiarity effect was shown in the UK, with German participants who have never seen these objects before. We addressed the question whether simply a high degree of distinctness, or whether instead actual prior familiarity of these objects, are required to affect motor computations. We found that under monocular and binocular viewing conditions the learned size and location influenced the amplitude of the reaching component significantly. In contrast, the maximum grip aperture remained unaffected for binocular vision. We conclude that visual distinctness is sufficient to form reliable associations in short-term learning to influence reaching even for preserved stereovision. Grasp pre-shaping instead seems to be less susceptible to such perceptual effects.
authors: Division of Neuropsychology, Hertie-Institute for Clinical Brain Research and Centre for Integrative Neuroscience, Eberhard Karls University, Tübingen, Germany.
authors: Andrea
authors: A
authors: Christensen
authors: Svenja
authors: S
authors: Borchers
authors: Marc
authors: M
authors: Himmelbach
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007858:Learning / Q000502:physiology*; D008297:Male; D010364:Pattern Recognition, Visual / Q000502:physiology; D011597:Psychomotor Performance / Q000502:physiology; D015348:Vision, Binocular / Q000502:physiology*; D015349:Vision, Monocular / Q000502:physiology*
references: Exp Brain Res. 2002 Dec;147(4):473-84
references: 12444479
references: Exp Brain Res. 2000 Oct;134(4):456-63
references: 11081827
references: J Cogn Neurosci. 2000 Nov;12(6):950-64
references: 11177416
references: Exp Brain Res. 2001 Jul;139(2):127-36
references: 11497053
references: Neuropsychologia. 1994 Apr;32(4):369-80
references: 8047246
references: Psychol Forsch. 1971;35(1):57-80
references: 5160086
references: Trends Neurosci. 1992 Jan;15(1):20-5
references: 1374953
references: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2000 Feb;26(1):418-23
references: 10696627
references: Vision Res. 1995 Feb;35(3):389-412
references: 7892735
references: Cogn Psychol. 1985 Jan;17(1):1-25
references: 3995897
references: Percept Psychophys. 2001 Oct;63(7):1140-52
references: 11766940
references: Exp Brain Res. 1996 Dec;112(3):442-51
references: 9007546
references: Q J Exp Psychol. 1969 Aug;21(3):239-47
references: 5347010
references: Neuropsychologia. 1971 Mar;9(1):97-113
references: 5146491
references: Exp Brain Res. 1997 Aug;116(1):113-21
references: 9305820
references: Exp Brain Res. 1996 Oct;111(3):473-6
references: 8911942
references: Vision Res. 2011 Jul 1;51(13):1567-87
references: 20691202
references: Exp Brain Res. 2011 Jul;212(3):339-46
references: 21618038
references: Exp Brain Res. 2008 Aug;189(2):211-20
references: 18493753
references: Spat Vis. 2006;19(5):439-57
references: 17131650
references: Behav Res Methods. 2007 May;39(2):175-91
references: 17695343
references: Neuropsychologia. 2008;46(9):2441-4
references: 18407302
references: Neuropsychologia. 2011 Feb;49(3):556-63
references: 21168426
references: J Cogn Neurosci. 2001 Jan 1;13(1):8-17
references: 11224905