JN Fuel your research with LabChart
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

J Neurophysiol 91: 1620-1634, 2004. First published November 19, 2003; doi:10.1152/jn.00862.2003
0022-3077/04 $5.00
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
91/4/1620    most recent
00862.2003v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (19)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Zago, M.
Right arrow Articles by Lacquaniti, F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Zago, M.
Right arrow Articles by Lacquaniti, F.

Internal Models of Target Motion: Expected Dynamics Overrides Measured Kinematics in Timing Manual Interceptions

Myrka Zago1, Gianfranco Bosco1,2, Vincenzo Maffei1, Marco Iosa1, Yuri P. Ivanenko1 and Francesco Lacquaniti1,2

1 Sezione di Fisiologia umana, IRCCS Fondazione Santa Lucia, 00179 Rome; 2 Dipartimento di Neuroscienze and Centro di Biomedicina Spaziale, Università di Roma Tor Vergata, 00133 Rome, Italy

Submitted 3 September 2003; accepted in final form 18 November 2003

Prevailing views on how we time the interception of a moving object assume that the visual inputs are informationally sufficient to estimate the time-to-contact from the object's kinematics. Here we present evidence in favor of a different view: the brain makes the best estimate about target motion based on measured kinematics and an a priori guess about the causes of motion. According to this theory, a predictive model is used to extrapolate time-to-contact from expected dynamics (kinetics). We projected a virtual target moving vertically downward on a wide screen with different randomized laws of motion. In the first series of experiments, subjects were asked to intercept this target by punching a real ball that fell hidden behind the screen and arrived in synchrony with the visual target. Subjects systematically timed their motor responses consistent with the assumption of gravity effects on an object's mass, even when the visual target did not accelerate. With training, the gravity model was not switched off but adapted to nonaccelerating targets by shifting the time of motor activation. In the second series of experiments, there was no real ball falling behind the screen. Instead the subjects were required to intercept the visual target by clicking a mousebutton. In this case, subjects timed their responses consistent with the assumption of uniform motion in the absence of forces, even when the target actually accelerated. Overall, the results are in accord with the theory that motor responses evoked by visual kinematics are modulated by a prior of the target dynamics. The prior appears surprisingly resistant to modifications based on performance errors.

Address for reprint requests and other correspondence: M. Zago, IRCCS Fondazione Santa Lucia, via Ardeatina 306, 00179 Rome, Italy (E-mail: m.zago{at}hsantalucia.it).




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J. Neurosci.Home page
F. F. Ghasia, H. Meng, and D. E. Angelaki
Neural Correlates of Forward and Inverse Models for Eye Movements: Evidence from Three-Dimensional Kinematics
J. Neurosci., May 7, 2008; 28(19): 5082 - 5087.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Neurophysiol.Home page
W. L. Miller, V. Maffei, G. Bosco, M. Iosa, M. Zago, E. Macaluso, and F. Lacquaniti
Vestibular Nuclei and Cerebellum Put Visual Gravitational Motion in Context
J Neurophysiol, April 1, 2008; 99(4): 1969 - 1982.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Neurosci.Home page
L. E. Brown, E. T. Wilson, M. A. Goodale, and P. L. Gribble
Motor Force Field Learning Influences Visual Processing of Target Motion
J. Neurosci., September 12, 2007; 27(37): 9975 - 9983.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Neurosci.Home page
L. A. Mrotek and J. F. Soechting
Target Interception: Hand-Eye Coordination and Strategies
J. Neurosci., July 4, 2007; 27(27): 7297 - 7309.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Neurophysiol.Home page
P. Senot, M. Zago, F. Lacquaniti, and J. McIntyre
Anticipating the Effects of Gravity When Intercepting Moving Objects: Differentiating Up and Down Based on Nonvisual Cues
J Neurophysiol, December 1, 2005; 94(6): 4471 - 4480.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Neurophysiol.Home page
M. Zago and F. Lacquaniti
Internal Model of Gravity for Hand Interception: Parametric Adaptation to Zero-Gravity Visual Targets on Earth
J Neurophysiol, August 1, 2005; 94(2): 1346 - 1357.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 ScienceHome page
I. Indovina, V. Maffei, G. Bosco, M. Zago, E. Macaluso, and F. Lacquaniti
Representation of Visual Gravitational Motion in the Human Vestibular Cortex
Science, April 15, 2005; 308(5720): 416 - 419.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Cogn. Neurosci.Home page
J. C. Dessing, C. (L. E. Peper, D. Bullock, and P. J. Beek
How Position, Velocity, and Temporal Information Combine in the Prospective Control of Catching: Data and Model
J. Cogn. Neurosci., April 1, 2005; 17(4): 668 - 686.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Neurophysiol.Home page
M. Zago, G. Bosco, V. Maffei, M. Iosa, Y. P. Ivanenko, and F. Lacquaniti
Fast Adaptation of the Internal Model of Gravity for Manual Interceptions: Evidence for Event-Dependent Learning
J Neurophysiol, February 1, 2005; 93(2): 1055 - 1068.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Visit Other APS Journals Online
Copyright © 2004 by the The American Physiological Society.