Visual background information may facilitate visually guided and memory guided estimates of reach, as estimates have been linked to the mental representation of action. Right-handed adults were asked to give verbal estimates of distance reachability using motor imagery in conditions with no visual background or with visual background. In each condition, four delays were used: 0, 1, 2, and 4 sec. There were no distinctions between conditions; however, comparisons at each delay were significantly different at 2 and 4 sec. With each delay, participants displayed significantly less error when the visual background was presented. These findings are consistent with the notion that motor simulation approximates motor planning and execution.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BradshawM. F.WattS. J. (2002) A dissociation of perception and action in normal human observers: The effect of temporal delay. Neuropsychologia, 40, 1766–1778.
2.
CarrozzoM.StrattaF.McIntyreJ.LacquanitiF. (2002) Cognitive allocentric representations of visual space shape pointing errors. Experimental Brain Research, 147, 426–436.
3.
CoelloY.IwanowO. (2006) Effect of structuring the workspace on cognitive and sensorimotor distance estimation: No dissociation between perception and action. Perception & Psychophysics, 68, 278–289.
4.
DiedrichsenJ.WernerS.SchmidtT.TrommershauserJ. (2004) Immediate spatial distortions of pointing movements induced by visual landmarks. Perception and Psychophysiology, 66, 89–103.
5.
FischerM. H. (2005) Action simulation for others is not constrained by one's own postures. Neuropsychologia, 43, 28–34.
6.
GabbardC.AmmarD.RodriguesL. (2005) Perceived reach in hemispace. Brain and Cognition, 58, 172–177.
7.
GoodaleM. A.KroliczakG.WestwoodD. A. (2005) Dual routes to action: Contributions of the dorsal and ventral streams to adaptive behavior. Progress in Brain Research, 149, 269–283.
8.
GrahamJ.BradshawM. F.DavisA. (1998) The effect of pre-movement delays on pointing accuracy in middle childhood. Perception, 27, 1379–1389.
9.
HeathM.WestwoodD. A.BinstedG. (2004) The control of memory-guided reaching movements in peripersonal space. Motor Control, 8, 76–106.
10.
HuY.EaglesonR.GoodaleM. A. (1999) The effects of delay on the kinematics of grasping. Experimental Brain Research, 126, 109–116.
11.
JeannerodM. (2001) Neural simulation of action: A unifying mechanism for motor cognition. Neuroimage, 14, S103–S109.
12.
JohnsonS.CorballisP.GazzanigaM. (2001) Within grasp but out of reach: Evidence for a double dissociation between imagined hand and arm movements in the left cerebral hemisphere. Neuropsychologia, 39, 36–50.
13.
KrigolsonO.HeathM. (2004) Background visual cues and memory-guided reaching. Human Movement Science, 2, 861–877.
14.
KunzB. R.Creem-RegehrS. H.ThompsonW. B. (2009) Evidence for motor simulation in imagined locomotion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35, 1458–1471.
15.
LemayM.BertramC. P.StelmachG. E. (2004) Pointing to an allocentric and egocentric remembered target. Motor Control, 8, 16–32.
16.
LoreyB.PilgrammS.WalterB.StarkR.MunzertJ.ZentgrafK. (2010) Your mind's eye: Motor imagery of pointing movements with different accuracy. Neuroimage, 49, 3239–3247.
17.
MarkL. S.NemethK.GardnerD.DainoffM. J.PaascheJ.DuffyM.GrandtK. (1997) Postural dynamics and the preferred critical boundary for visually guided reaching. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 23, 1365–1379.
18.
MunzertJ.LoreyB.ZentgrafK. (2009) Cognitive motor processes: The role of motor imagery in the study of motor representations. Brain Research Reviews, 60, 306–326.
19.
ObhiS. S.GoodaleM. A. (2005) The effects of landmarks on the performance of delayed and real-time pointing movements. Experimental Brain Research, 167, 335–344.
20.
RossitS.MuirK.ReevesI.DuncanG.BirschelP.HarveyM. (2009) Immediate and delayed reaching in hemispatial neglect. Neuropsychologia, 47, 1563–1572.
21.
SiriguA.DuhamelJ. R. (2001) Motor and visual imagery as two complementary but neurally dissociable mental processes. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 13, 910–919.
22.
StevensJ. A. (2005) Interference effects demonstrate distinct roles for visual motor imagery during the mental representation of human action. Cognition, 95, 329–350.
