Effects of delayed visual feedback on grooved pegboard test performance.
Identifieur interne : 000C39 ( PubMed/Corpus ); précédent : 000C38; suivant : 000C40Effects of delayed visual feedback on grooved pegboard test performance.
Auteurs : Waka FujisakiSource :
- Frontiers in psychology [ 1664-1078 ] ; 2012.
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.
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00061
PubMed: 22408631
Links to Exploration step
pubmed:22408631Le document en format XML
<record><TEI><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Effects of delayed visual feedback on grooved pegboard test performance.</title><author><name sortKey="Fujisaki, Waka" sort="Fujisaki, Waka" uniqKey="Fujisaki W" first="Waka" last="Fujisaki">Waka Fujisaki</name><affiliation><nlm:affiliation>Human Technology Research Institute, National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan.</nlm:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">PubMed</idno><date when="2012">2012</date><idno type="doi">10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00061</idno><idno type="RBID">pubmed:22408631</idno><idno type="pmid">22408631</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/PubMed/Corpus">000C39</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title xml:lang="en">Effects of delayed visual feedback on grooved pegboard test performance.</title><author><name sortKey="Fujisaki, Waka" sort="Fujisaki, Waka" uniqKey="Fujisaki W" first="Waka" last="Fujisaki">Waka Fujisaki</name><affiliation><nlm:affiliation>Human Technology Research Institute, National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan.</nlm:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><series><title level="j">Frontiers in psychology</title><idno type="eISSN">1664-1078</idno><imprint><date when="2012" type="published">2012</date></imprint></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">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.</div></front></TEI><pubmed><MedlineCitation Owner="NLM" Status="PubMed-not-MEDLINE"><PMID Version="1">22408631</PMID><DateCreated><Year>2012</Year><Month>03</Month><Day>12</Day></DateCreated><DateCompleted><Year>2012</Year><Month>10</Month><Day>02</Day></DateCompleted><DateRevised><Year>2015</Year><Month>02</Month><Day>09</Day></DateRevised><Article PubModel="Electronic-eCollection"><Journal><ISSN IssnType="Electronic">1664-1078</ISSN><JournalIssue CitedMedium="Internet"><Volume>3</Volume><PubDate><Year>2012</Year></PubDate></JournalIssue><Title>Frontiers in psychology</Title><ISOAbbreviation>Front Psychol</ISOAbbreviation></Journal><ArticleTitle>Effects of delayed visual feedback on grooved pegboard test performance.</ArticleTitle><Pagination><MedlinePgn>61</MedlinePgn></Pagination><ELocationID EIdType="doi" ValidYN="Y">10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00061</ELocationID><Abstract><AbstractText>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.</AbstractText></Abstract><AuthorList CompleteYN="Y"><Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>Fujisaki</LastName><ForeName>Waka</ForeName><Initials>W</Initials><AffiliationInfo><Affiliation>Human Technology Research Institute, National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan.</Affiliation></AffiliationInfo></Author></AuthorList><Language>eng</Language><PublicationTypeList><PublicationType UI="D016428">Journal Article</PublicationType></PublicationTypeList><ArticleDate DateType="Electronic"><Year>2012</Year><Month>03</Month><Day>08</Day></ArticleDate></Article><MedlineJournalInfo><Country>Switzerland</Country><MedlineTA>Front Psychol</MedlineTA><NlmUniqueID>101550902</NlmUniqueID><ISSNLinking>1664-1078</ISSNLinking></MedlineJournalInfo><OtherID Source="NLM">PMC3297075</OtherID><KeywordList Owner="NOTNLM"><Keyword MajorTopicYN="N">Grooved Pegboard test</Keyword><Keyword MajorTopicYN="N">critical interval</Keyword><Keyword MajorTopicYN="N">delayed auditory feedback</Keyword><Keyword MajorTopicYN="N">delayed visual feedback</Keyword><Keyword MajorTopicYN="N">haptic information</Keyword><Keyword MajorTopicYN="N">spatial disparity</Keyword><Keyword MajorTopicYN="N">temporal disparity</Keyword></KeywordList></MedlineCitation><PubmedData><History><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="received"><Year>2011</Year><Month>11</Month><Day>25</Day></PubMedPubDate><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="accepted"><Year>2012</Year><Month>2</Month><Day>15</Day></PubMedPubDate><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="epublish"><Year>2012</Year><Month>3</Month><Day>08</Day></PubMedPubDate><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="entrez"><Year>2012</Year><Month>3</Month><Day>13</Day><Hour>6</Hour><Minute>0</Minute></PubMedPubDate><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="pubmed"><Year>2012</Year><Month>3</Month><Day>13</Day><Hour>6</Hour><Minute>0</Minute></PubMedPubDate><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="medline"><Year>2012</Year><Month>3</Month><Day>13</Day><Hour>6</Hour><Minute>1</Minute></PubMedPubDate></History><PublicationStatus>epublish</PublicationStatus><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="doi">10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00061</ArticleId><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">22408631</ArticleId><ArticleId IdType="pmc">PMC3297075</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></PubmedData></pubmed></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Ticri/CIDE/explor/HapticV1/Data/PubMed/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 000C39 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/PubMed/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 000C39 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Ticri/CIDE
|area= HapticV1
|flux= PubMed
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= pubmed:22408631
|texte= Effects of delayed visual feedback on grooved pegboard test performance.
}}
Pour générer des pages wiki
HfdIndexSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/PubMed/Corpus/RBID.i -Sk "pubmed:22408631" \
| HfdSelect -Kh $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/PubMed/Corpus/biblio.hfd \
| NlmPubMed2Wicri -a HapticV1
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.23. |  |