These findings have been recently extended to two-hand, bimanual motor control ( Ganel et al., 2017 Ozana and Ganel, 2020). ![]() These findings have been attributed to the proposed functional separation between visual perception and visual control of action ( Goodale and Milner, 1992 Milner and Goodale, 2008 but see Glover and Dixon, 2001 Smeets and Brenner, 2008 Rossit et al., 2018 for different views). In particular, the shaping of the grip aperture is unaffected by tasks-irrelevant, perceptually driven information about objects and their surroundings ( Aglioti et al., 1995 Ganel and Goodale, 2003 Ganel et al., 2008 Chen et al., 2015 Namdar et al., 2018 but see Franz and Gegenfurtner, 2008 Kopiske et al., 2016). For instance, grasping gestures toward physical 3D objects are typically performed analytically. Recent studies, however, suggest that virtual interactions are (still) performed differently from interactions with 3D objects in the physical environment ( Holmes and Heath, 2013 Freud and Ganel, 2015 Ozana and Ganel, 2018, 2019a). Current advances in immersive technology aim to simulate a similar sense of control when interacting with virtual objects within virtual environments. People interact with physical objects in their surroundings by reach-to-grasp movements. These findings are discussed in relevance to previous literature on 2D and 3D grasping. The results showed that grasping trajectories in the feedback, but not in the no-feedback condition, could be performed more efficiently, and evade the influence of Weber’s law. Haptic feedback was not provided in the no-feedback condition. In the haptic feedback condition, physical stimuli of matching dimensions were embedded in the virtual environment. Participants were asked to perform bimanual grasping movements toward the edges of virtual targets. Within this environment, we tested the effect of haptic feedback on grasping trajectories. In the current study, we focused on grasping performance in a state-of-the-art virtual reality system that provides an accurate representation of the 3D space. It is unclear, however, whether this inefficiency reflects extensive variation in the way in which visual information is processed in virtual environments or more local aspects related to the settings of the virtual environment. These results suggest that actions in virtual environments are performed in an inefficient manner and are subjected to perceptual effects. For instance, unlike actions toward real objects that violate Weber’s law, a basic law of visual perception, actions toward virtual objects presented on flat-screens, or in remote virtual environments, obey to Weber’s law. Recent findings suggest that the functional separation between vision-for-action and vision-for-perception does not generalize to situations in which virtual objects are used as targets.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |