Space perception is systematically biased. Few theories of spatial bias address the possible functional advantages of mechanisms that produce spatial biases. The scale expansion hypothesis proposes that many spatial biases are due to the perceptual expansion of visual angles, which acts somewhat like a natural magnifying glass in vision. The present study examined the idea that visual expansion may improve motor precision (i.e., reduce motor variability) in movements when using closed-loop control but not when using open-loop control. Experiment 1 tested this idea in an online tracking task (closed-loop control), whereas Experiment 2 tested it in a fast-hitting task (open-loop control). The results were consistent with the hypothesis. To rule out the effect of the task difference (i.e., tracking vs fast hitting), Experiment 3 examined the effect of visual expansion on the variability of motor performance in a line-reproduction task. The control type (closed-loop or open-loop) was manipulated by the form of visual feedback (online or offline). The results were again consistent with the present assumption. Taken together, the present data suggest that perceptual expansion in vision improves motor-control precision when using closed-loop control (but not when using open-loop control), which supports the scale expansion hypothesis. In addition, the present findings also improve our understanding of how visual error amplification affects motor control.
AbdollahiF.Case LazarroE. D.ListenbergerM.KenyonR. V.KovicM.BogeyR. A.. . . PattonJ. L. (2014). Error augmentation enhancing arm recovery in individuals with chronic stroke: A randomized crossover design. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, 28(2), 120–128.
2.
AbdollahiF.RozarioS. V.KenyonR. V.PattonJ. L.CaseE.KovicM.ListenbergerM. (2011, June). Arm control recovery enhanced by error augmentation. In 2011 IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (pp. 1–6). Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5975504/references#references
3.
AdamsJ. A. (1971). A closed-loop theory of motor learning. Journal of Motor Behavior, 3(2), 111–150.
4.
BernsteinN. (1966). The co-ordination and regulation of movements. Pergamon Press.
5.
BianT.WolpertD. M.JiangZ. P. (2020). Model-free robust optimal feedback mechanisms of biological motor control. Neural Computation, 32(3), 562–595.
6.
BridgemanB.HooverM. (2008). Processing spatial layout by perception and sensorimotor interaction. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61(6), 851–859.
7.
BonnenK.BurgeJ.YatesJ.PillowJ.CormackL. K. (2015). Continuous psychophysics: Target-tracking to measure visual sensitivity. Journal of Vision, 15(3), 14.
8.
DancauseN.PtitoA.LevinM. F. (2002). Error correction strategies for motor behavior after unilateral brain damage: Short-term motor learning processes. Neuropsychologia, 40(8), 1313–1323.
9.
Da SilvaJ. A. (1985). Scales for perceived egocentric distance in a large open field: Comparison of three psychophysical methods. The American Journal of Psychology, 98(1), 119–144.
10.
DurginF. H. (2009). When walking makes perception better. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 43–47.
11.
DurginF. H. (2014). Angular scale expansion theory and the misperception of egocentric distance in locomotor space. Psychology & Neuroscience, 7, 253–260.
12.
DurginF. H.LiZ. (2011). Perceptual scale expansion: An efficient angular coding strategy for locomotor space. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 73, 1856–1870.
13.
FancherR. E. (1990). Pioneers of psychology (2nd ed.). W. W. Norton.
14.
FasolaJ.KannapeO. A.BouriM.BleulerH.BlankeO. (2019, July). Error augmentation improves visuomotor adaptation during a full-body balance task. In 2019 41st Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC) (pp. 1529–1533). Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8857523
15.
FoleyJ. M.Ribeiro-FilhoN. P.Da SilvaJ. A. (2004). Visual perception of extent and the geometry of visual space. Vision Research, 44, 147–156.
16.
GajewskiD. A.PhilbeckJ. W.WirtzP. W.ChichkaD. (2014). Angular declination and the dynamic perception of egocentric distance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40, 361–377.
17.
GibsonJ. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Psychology Press.
18.
GraftonS. T.SchmittP.Van HornJ.DiedrichsenJ. (2008). Neural substrates of visuomotor learning based on improved feedback control and prediction. NeuroImage, 39(3), 1383–1395.
19.
HarrisC. S. (1963). Adaptation to displaced vision: visual, motor, or proprioceptive change?.Science, 140(3568), 812–813.
20.
HassonC. J.ZhangZ.AbeM. O.SternadD. (2016). Neuromotor noise is malleable by amplifying perceived errors. PLOS Computational Biology, 12(8), Article e1005044.
21.
HeX.DuY. F.LanN. (2012). Evaluation of feedforward and feedback contributions to hand stiffness and variability in multijoint arm control. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, 21(4), 634–647.
22.
HeldR.FreedmanS. J. (1963). Plasticity in Human Sensorimotor Control: Studies of disordered motor-sensory feedback raise questions about man’s coordination in outer space. Science, 142(3591), 455–462.
23.
HoweC. Q.PurvesD. (2005). Natural-scene geometry predicts the perception of angles and line orientation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(4), 1228–1233.
24.
JacksonR. E.CormackL. K. (2008). Evolved navigation theory and the environmental vertical illusion. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29(5), 299–304.
25.
KammannR. (1967). Overestimation of vertical distance and slope and its role in the moon illusion. Perception & Psychophysics, 2, 585–589. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03210273
26.
KellyJ. W.LoomisJ. M.BeallA. C. (2004). Judgments of exocentric direction in large-scale space. Perception, 33(4), 443–454.
27.
KhanM. A.FranksI. M.ElliottD.LawrenceG. P.ChuaR.BernierP. M.. . . WeeksD. J. (2006). Inferring online and offline processing of visual feedback in target-directed movements from kinematic data. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 30(8), 1106–1121.
28.
KimJ.LeeJ.KakeiS.KimJ. (2017). Motor control characteristics for circular tracking movements of human wrist. Advanced Robotics, 31(1–2), 29–39.
29.
LiZ.DurginF. H. (2009). Downhill slopes look shallower from the edge. Journal of Vision, 9(11), Article 6.
30.
LiZ.DurginF. H. (2010). Perceived slant of binocularly viewed large-scale surfaces: A common model from explicit and implicit measures. Journal of Vision, 10(14), Article 13.
31.
LiZ.DurginF. H. (2012). A comparison of two theories of perceived distance on the ground plane: The angular expansion hypothesis and the intrinsic bias hypothesis. i-Perception, 3, 368–383.
32.
LiZ.DurginF. H. (2013). Depth compression based on mis-scaling of binocular disparity may contribute to angular expansion in perceived optical slant. Journal of Vision, 13(12), Article 3.
33.
LiZ.PhillipsJ.DurginF. H. (2011). The underestimation of egocentric distance: Evidence from frontal matching tasks. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 73, 2205–2217.
34.
LiZ.SunE.StrawserC. J.SpiegelA.KleinB.DurginF. H. (2013). On the anisotropy of perceived ground extents and the interpretation of walked distance as a measure of perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39(2), 477–493.
35.
LoomisJ. M. (2014). Three theories for reconciling the linearity of egocentric distance perception with distortion of shape on the ground plane. Psychology & Neuroscience, 7, 245–251.
36.
Marchal-CrespoL.MichelsL.JaegerL.López-OlórizJ.RienerR. (2017). Effect of error augmentation on brain activation and motor learning of a complex locomotor task. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 11, Article 526.
37.
MilotM. H.Marchal-CrespoL.GreenC. S.CramerS. C.ReinkensmeyerD. J. (2010). Comparison of error-amplification and haptic-guidance training techniques for learning of a timing-based motor task by healthy individuals. Experimental Brain Research, 201(2), 119–131.
RossH. E. (1974). Behaviour and perception in strange environments. George Allen & Unwin.
46.
RossH. E. (2010). Perspective effects in frontal slope perception. Proceedings of Fechner Day, 26, 81–86.
47.
SchmidtR. A. (1975). A schema theory of discrete motor skill learning. Psychological Review, 82(4), 225–260.
48.
SchmidtR. A. (2003). Motor schema theory after 27 years: Reflections and implications for a new theory. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 74(4), 366–375.
49.
SeidlerR. D.KwakY.FlingB. W.BernardJ. A. (2013). Neurocognitive mechanisms of error-based motor learning. In RichardsonM.RileyM.ShockleyK. (Eds.), Progress in motor control (pp. 39–60). Springer.
50.
ShafferD. M.McManamaE. (2015). Remote haptic perception of slanted surfaces shows the same scale expansion as visual perception. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 77, 948–952.
51.
ShafferD. M.TaylorA.McManamaE.ThomasA.SmithE.GravesP. (2016). Palm board and verbal estimates of slant reflect the same perceptual representation. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 78, 663–673.
52.
SharpI.HuangF.PattonJ. (2011). Visual error augmentation enhances learning in three dimensions. Journal of Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation, 8(1), 1–6.
53.
ShirzadN.Van der LoosH. M. (2012, August). Error amplification to promote motor learning and motivation in therapy robotics. In 2012 Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (pp. 3907–3910). Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6346821
54.
ShumL. C.ValdésB. A.HodgesN. J.Van der LoosH. M. (2019). Error augmentation in immersive virtual reality for bimanual upper-limb rehabilitation in individuals with and without hemiplegic cerebral palsy. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, 28(2), 541–549.
55.
StefanucciJ. K.ProffittD. R.CloreG. L.ParekhN. (2008). Skating down a steeper slope: Fear influences the perception of geographical slant. Perception, 37(2), 321–323.
56.
SungC.O’MalleyM. K. (2011, June). Effect of progressive visual error amplification on human motor adaptation. In 2011 IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (pp. 1–6). Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/5975399
57.
WagnerM. (2006). The geometries of visual space. Psychology Press.
58.
WallachH.O’LearyA. (1982). Slope of regard as a distance cue. Perception & Psychophysics, 31, 145–148.
59.
WangF.BarkanaD. E.SarkarN. (2010). Impact of visual error augmentation when integrated with assist-as-needed training method in robot-assisted rehabilitation. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, 18(5), 571–579.
60.
WeiY.PattonJ.BajajP.ScheidtR. (2005, April). A real-time haptic/graphic demonstration of how error augmentation can enhance learning. In Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (pp. 4406–4411). Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1570798
61.
WilliamsM.DurginF. (2014). Direct manipulation of perceived angular declination affects perceived size and distance: A replication and extension of Wallach and O’Leary (1982). Journal of Vision, 14(10), Article 144.
62.
WoodworthR. S. (1899). Accuracy of voluntary movement. The Psychological Review: Monograph Supplements, 3(3), i–114.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
