Optic flow is known to adapt the direction of walking, but the locus of adaptation remains unknown. The effect could be due to realignment of anatomical eye, head, trunk, and leg coordinate frames or to recalibration of a functional mapping from the visual direction of the target to the direction of locomotion. We tested whether adaptation of walking to a target, with optic flow displaced by 10°, transfers to facing, throwing, and kicking a ball to the target. A negative aftereffect for initial walking direction failed to transfer to head orientation or throwing or kicking direction. Thus, participants effectively threw or kicked the ball to the target, and then walked in another direction to retrieve it. These findings are consistent with recalibration of a task-specific visuo-locomotor mapping, revealing a functional level of organization in perception and action.
BernsteinN.A. (1996). On dexterity and its development. In LatashM.L.TurveyM.T. (Eds.), Dexterity and its development (pp. 3–244). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
2.
BinghamG.CoatsR.Mon-WilliamsM. (2007). Natural prehension in trials without haptic feedback but only when calibration is allowed. Neuropsychologia, 45, 288–294.
3.
BinghamG.P.PaganoC.C. (1998). The necessity of a perception-action approach to definite distance perception: Monocular distance perception to guide reaching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 145–168.
4.
BinghamG.P.RomackJ.L. (1999). The rate of adaptation to displacement prisms remains constant despite acquisition of rapid calibration. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 1331–1346.
5.
BrandwoodT.RushtonS.K.CharronC. (2009). Exposure to displaced optic flow results in adaptation of visual straight ahead. Journal of Vision, 9(8), Abstract 825. Retrieved April 20, 2010, from http://journalofvision.org/9/8/825/
6.
BruggemanH.ZoshW.D.WarrenW.H. (2007). Optic flow drives human visuo-locomotor adaptation. Current Biology, 17, 2035–2040.
7.
GibsonJ.J. (1950). The perception of the visual world. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
8.
HarrisC.S. (1963). Adaptation to displaced vision: Visual, motor, or proprioceptive change?Science, 140, 812–813.
9.
HarrisM.G.CarreG. (2001). Is optic flow used to guide walking while wearing a displacing prism?Perception, 30, 811–818.
10.
HayJ.C.PickH.L. (1966a). Gaze-contingent prism adaptation: Optical and motor factors. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72, 640–648.
11.
HayJ.C.PickH.L. (1966b). Visual and proprioceptive adaptation to optical displacement of the visual stimulus. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71, 150–158.
12.
HeldR.BossomJ. (1961). Neonatal deprivation and adult re-arrangement: Complementary techniques for analyzing plastic sensory-motor coordinations. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 54, 33–37.
13.
IngleD. (1973). Two visual systems in the frog. Science, 181, 1053–1055.
14.
MohlerB.J.ThompsonW.B.Creem-RegehrS.H.WillemsenP.PickH.L.ReiserJ.J. (2007). Calibration of locomotion resulting from visual motion in a treadmill-based virtual environment. ACM Transactions on Applied Perception, 4, 20–32.
15.
MortonS.M.BastianA.J. (2004). Prism adaptation during walking generalizes to reaching and requires the cerebellum. Journal of Neurophysiology, 92, 2497–2509.
16.
PickH.L.HayJ.C. (1966). Gaze-contingent adaptation to prismatic spectacles. American Journal of Psychology, 79, 443–450.
17.
ReddingG.M.RossettiY.WallaceB. (2005). Applications of prism adaptation: A tutorial in theory and method. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 29, 431–444.
ReddingG.M.WallaceB. (1985b). Perceptual-motor coordination and adaptation during locomotion: Determinants of prism adaptation in hall exposure. Perception & Psychophysics, 38, 320–330.
ReedE.S. (1982). An outline of a theory of action systems. Journal of Motor Behavior, 14, 98–134.
22.
RieserJ.J.PickH.L.AshmeadD.H.GaringA.E. (1995). Calibration of human locomotion and models of perceptual-motor organization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 480–497.
23.
RogersB.J.SpencerO.E. (2005). Heading toward distant targets: Optic flow and the recalibration of visual direction. Journal of Vision, 5(8), Abstract 385. Retrieved April 20, 2010, from http://journalofvision.org/5/8/385/
24.
RushtonS.K. (2004). Egocentric direction and locomotion. In LuciaV.BeardsleyS.A.RushtonS.K. (Eds.), Optic flow and beyond (pp. 339–362). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
25.
RushtonS.K.SalvucciD.D. (2001). An egocentric account of the visual guidance of locomotion. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 6–7.
26.
TuranoK.A.YuD.HaoL.HicksJ.C. (2005). Optic-flow and egocentric-direction strategies in walking: Central vs peripheral visual field. Vision Research, 45, 3117–3132.
27.
VindrasP.VivianiP. (1998). Frames of reference and control parameters in visuomanual pointing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 569–591.
28.
WarrenW.H. (2006). The dynamics of perception and action. Psychological Review, 113, 358–389.
29.
WarrenW.H. (2007). Optic flow. In HoyR.R.ShepherdG.M.BasbaumA.I.KanekoA.WestheimerG. (Eds.), The senses: A comprehensive reference (pp. 219–230). Oxford, England: Elsevier.
30.
WarrenW.H. (1988). Action modes and laws of control for the visual guidance of action. In MeijerO.RothK. (Eds.), Movement behavior: The motor-action controversy (pp. 339–380). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
31.
WarrenW.H.KayB.A.ZoshW.D.DuchonA.P.SahucS. (2001). Optic flow is used to control human walking. Nature Neuroscience, 4, 213–216.
32.
WithagenR.MichaelsC.F. (2002). The calibration of walking transfers to crawling: Are action systems calibrated?Ecological Psychology, 14, 223–234.
33.
WithagenR.MichaelsC.F. (2005). On ecological conceptualizations of perceptual systems and action systems. Theory & Psychology, 15, 603–620.
34.
WoodR.M.HarveyM.A.YoungC.E.BeedieA.WilsonT. (2000). Weighting to go with the flow?Current Biology, 10, R545–R546.
