Do Exploratory Arm Movements Contribute to Reach-Ability Judgments?

Author(s):  
Benjamin P. Widlus ◽  
Keith S. Jones

Gibson (1979/1986) argued that exploratory movements generate information about agents’ action-capabilities within a given environment, that is, about the agent-environment system’s affordances. To date, the scant literature on exploratory movements has revealed two important findings. First, restricting exploratory movements degrades the accuracy of affordance judgments (Mark et al., 1990; Yu, Bardy, & Stoffregen, 2011). Second, exploratory movements can be very subtle (Stoffregen, Yang, & Bardy, 2005; Yu, Bardy, & Stoffregen, 2011). However, many questions regarding exploratory movements have yet to be answered. For example, what exploratory movements are necessary to perceive a given affordance, and how do exploratory movements differ from related movements? Our long-term goal is to address such gaps in the literature. We decided to begin by examining what exploratory movements must be executed in order to perceive whether the actor can reach an object. Reaching exploratory movements likely have two key components: 1) head movements and 2) shoulder movements. The former can generate information about the absolute distance between the actor and the to-be-reached object (Bingham & Stassen, 1994), and have been confirmed to be necessary to produce accurate reaching judgments (Mantel, Stoffregen, Campbell & Bardy, 2015). The latter generates information about the actor’s arm length (Anderson & Turvey, 1998; Shibata, Gyoba, & Takeshima, 2012;), but their necessity to the reach-ability judgment has yet to be studied. The current experiment used a restriction paradigm to determine whether exploratory arm movements are necessary to make accurate reaching judgments. Participants (n = 32) judged their maximum reaching ability either while holding their arms behind their backs with their dominant hand grasping their non-dominant wrist (the Restricted condition), or while their arms swung naturally at their sides (the Unrestricted condition). Judgments were made actively, by walking forward or backward, in order to allow participants to generate the exploratory movements they would normally create (with the exception of arm movements in the Restricted condition) when moving toward an object with the intention to perform a reach (Mantel, Bardy, & Stoffregen, 2010). The study utilized a within-subjects design, with starting condition counterbalanced. For each condition, participants completed 1 practice trial followed by 9 experimental trials. Starting distances (from object) and angles were drawn equally and randomly from ranges of 1 – 24”, 25 – 48”, 49 – 72”, and 0 - 29o, 30 - 59o, 60 - 89o, respectively. Distances and angles were not repeated to prevent memorization. In line with previous affordance perception research, the dependent variable, Accuracy, was computed in terms of percentage of absolute error (|[judged maximum reach / actual maximum reach] -1| *100) (Oudejans, Michaels, Bakker, & Dolné, 1996). Accuracy was significantly greater when arm movements were unrestricted as compared to restricted, supporting the theory that exploratory arm movements are a component of reach-ability judgments. Reaching judgments in neither condition were perfectly accurate, which may have been due to the reaching judgment being the focal task (Heft, 1993). The present results have practical implications for operational situations in which actors’ arm movements might be restricted. For example, U.S. police and military personnel sometimes wear body armor that covers their shoulders, mounts ballistic plates to their upper arms, or some combination thereof. To the extent that such body armor restricts arm movements, then our results suggest that their reach-ability judgments would be degraded.

2020 ◽  
Vol 73 (9) ◽  
pp. 1301-1310
Author(s):  
Keith S Jones ◽  
Benjamin P Widlus

Exploratory movements provide information about agents’ action capabilities in a given environment. However, little is known about the specifics of these exploratory movements, such as which movements are necessary to perceive a given action capability. This experiment tested whether arm movements contributed to judgements of maximum reach distance. Participants made judgements about their maximum reach distance by walking to the point farthest from an object from which they still perceived the object to be reachable. Over the course of two sets of nine judgements, participants’ arms either swung naturally by their sides (Unrestricted Condition) or were held together behind their backs (Restricted Condition). Arm movement restriction increased maximum reach distance judgement error when compared with unrestricted judgements. In addition, judgement error improved over trials only when exploratory arm movements were unrestricted, and the improvements did not carry over to subsequent judgements made when exploratory arm movements were restricted. Arm movement restriction did not increase the variability of judgement error when compared with unrestricted judgements. The results indicate that exploration is necessary to generate affordance information, show that restricted exploration degrades affordance perception, and suggest that maximum reach distance exists at the global array level. In addition, they have practical implications for operational situations in which actors’ arm movements are restricted, such as when military personnel wear body armour.


Sensors ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (8) ◽  
pp. 1782 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hyung Seok Nam ◽  
Woo Hyung Lee ◽  
Han Gil Seo ◽  
Yoon Jae Kim ◽  
Moon Suk Bang ◽  
...  

In practical rehabilitation robot development, it is imperative to pre-specify the critical workspace to prevent redundant structure. This study aimed to characterize the upper extremity motion during essential activities in daily living. An IMU-based wearable motion capture system was used to access arm movements. Ten healthy subjects performed the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) and six pre-selected essential daily activities. The Euler angles of the major joints, and acceleration from wrist and hand sensors were acquired and analyzed. The size of the workspace for the ARAT was 0.53 (left-right) × 0.92 (front-back) × 0.89 (up-down) m for the dominant hand. For the daily activities, the workspace size was 0.71 × 0.70 × 0.86 m for the dominant hand, significantly larger than the non-dominant hand (p ≤ 0.011). The average range of motion (RoM) during ARAT was 109.15 ± 18.82° for elbow flexion/extension, 105.23 ± 5.38° for forearm supination/pronation, 91.99 ± 0.98° for shoulder internal/external rotation, and 82.90 ± 22.52° for wrist dorsiflexion/volarflexion, whereas the corresponding range for daily activities were 120.61 ± 23.64°, 128.09 ± 22.04°, 111.56 ± 31.88°, and 113.70 ± 18.26°. The shoulder joint was more abducted and extended during pinching compared to grasping posture (p < 0.001). Reaching from a grasping posture required approximately 70° elbow extension and 36° forearm supination from the initial position. The study results provide an important database for the workspace and RoM for essential arm movements.


2021 ◽  
Vol 36 (6) ◽  
pp. 1185-1185
Author(s):  
Peii Chen ◽  
Denise Krch ◽  
Grigoriy Shekhtman

Abstract Objective Examine the usability and feasibility of a virtual reality (VR) treatment for persons with spatial neglect using head mounted display (HMD) and hand tracking technologies. Method Recruited from a rehabilitation hospital, 9 stroke survivors with spatial neglect (3 females; mean age = 64.2 years, SD = 9.1; 8 left neglect) participated in user testing for ongoing software development. Participants tested one of four customized treatment modules and completed the System Usability Scale, the Presence Questionnaire, and the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire. Feedback from participants were integrated into iterative prototype revisions. Module 1 (n = 7) required arm movements gradually reaching toward the neglected side of space, while the virtual hand appeared reaching straight ahead. Module 2 (n = 4) required head movements from the non-neglected to the neglected side. Module 3 (n = 6) involved head and arm movements towards both sides of space to collect objects. Module 4 (n = 2) was to stop approaching objects from a distance ahead. Results Despite reporting a lack of realism, participants preferred VR over conventional therapy. Participants felt comfortable and confident engaging in the virtual environment. Module 4 was more difficult than the other modules as participants required more practice to perform the task. Two participants reported Module 3 being tiresome, with one reporting mild shoulder pain and eye strain, and moderate sweating. However, all reported symptoms were temporary and resolved following a short break. Conclusion VR-based rehabilitation for spatial neglect using HMD and hand tracking technologies may be a viable treatment option for stroke survivors with spatial neglect. The modules benefited substantively from modifications based on participants’ feedback.


1989 ◽  
Vol 69 (3-1) ◽  
pp. 811-818
Author(s):  
Muriel Hearn ◽  
Alan Crowe ◽  
Wim Keessen

Slow arm movements were made over a smooth horizontal table at shoulder height. With visual cues excluded, target position was indicated by the index finger of the nonmoving arm touching the underside of the table. 134 subjects (including 26 left-handed subjects) in the age range 8.0 to 24.6 yr. were examined to see if the results were age-related. Accuracy slightly but significantly increased with age. The younger subjects showed a greater accuracy with the dominant hand—a situation which tended to be reversed in the older subjects.


2002 ◽  
Vol 88 (5) ◽  
pp. 2408-2421 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leia B. Bagesteiro ◽  
Robert L. Sainburg

Recent findings from our laboratory suggest that a major factor distinguishing dominant from nondominant arm performance is the ability by which the effects of intersegmental dynamics are controlled by the CNS. These studies indicated that the dominant arm reliably used more torque-efficient patterns for movements made with similar speeds and accuracy than nondominant arm movements. Whereas, nondominant hand-path curvatures systematically varied with the amplitude of the interaction torques transferred between the segments of the moving limb, dominant hand-path curvatures did not. However, our previous studies did not distinguish whether dominant arm coordination advantages emerged from more effective control of dynamic factors or were simply a secondary effect of planning different kinematics. The purpose of this study was to further investigate interlimb differences in coordination through analysis of inverse dynamics and electromyography recorded during the performance of reaching movements. By controlling the amplitude of intersegmental dynamics in the current study, we were able to assess whether systematic differences in torque-efficiency exist, even when differences in hand-path shape were minimal. Subject's arms were supported in the horizontal plane by a frictionless air-jet system and were constrained to movements about the shoulder and elbow joints. Two targets were designed, such that the interaction torques elicited at the elbow were either large or small. Our results showed that the former produced large differences in hand-path curvature, whereas the latter did not. Additionally, the movements with small differences in hand-path kinematics showed substantial differences in torque patterns and corresponding EMG profiles which implied a more torque-efficient strategy for the dominant arm. In view of these findings we propose that distinct neural control mechanisms are employed for dominant and nondominant arm movements.


Author(s):  
Nicholas A. Garcia ◽  
Keith S. Jones ◽  
Benjamin P. Widlus

Summary Observers can perceive others’ action capabilities. These actions include observers’ abilities to perceive the maximum height that an actor can sit, step across a gap, climb in a bipedal manner, or reach an object (Stoffregen et al., 1999; Mark, 2007; Ramenzoni et al., 2008a, 2008b). While observers’ abilities to perceive others’ action capabilities have been widely studied, researchers debate the information to which observers attend when making such judgments. Some have argued observers attend to actor-environment relations when perceiving others’ action capabilities (e.g., Stoffregen et al., 1999; Mark, 2007; Ramenzoni et al., 2008a). From this perspective, observers attend to relations between relevant characteristics of the actor’s body (e.g., leg length) and their environment (e.g., step height) to perceive actors’ action capabilities (e.g., stair-climbing ability). This perspective has empirical support. For example, observers differentiated short and tall actors’ maximum sitting heights but only when the actors and sitting apparatus were presented in the same scale (Stoffregen et al., 1999). Others have argued observers attend to observer-environment relations when perceiving others’ capabilities (e.g., Knoblich & Sebanz, 2006; Ramenzoni et al., 2008b; Gallese & Sinigaglia, 2011). From this perspective, observers perceive their own action capabilities (Step 1), which serve as a model for the actor’s action capabilities and then adjust that model (Step 2) to account for observer-actor differences (Knoblich & Sebanz, 2006; Gallese & Sinigaglia, 2011). This perspective also has empirical support. For example, observers wearing ankle weights underestimated actors’ maximum jump-to-reach heights (Ramenzoni et al., 2008b). The present study further investigated whether observers attend to observer-environment relations when perceiving others’ maximum reach capabilities. Participants ( n = 34) made judgments about a confederate’s maximum reach capability while participants’ arms were held either freely by their sides (Unrestricted Condition) or placed behind their back (Restricted Condition). Widlus and Jones (2017) demonstrated that such arm restriction led to more erroneous judgments about one’s own reaching capabilities. To make judgments, participants directed the confederate to the farthest point from a hanging object that would still afford the confederate the ability to reach the object. If observers attend to observer-environment relations when judging the confederate’s maximum reach capability, then 1) judgment error would be greater in the Restricted condition than in the Unrestricted condition, 2) judgments would align with observers’ capabilities better than with the confederate’s, and 3) judgment error would positively correlate with the degree of dissimilarity between observers’ and the confederate’s action capabilities. The experiment used a within-subjects design. The independent variable was observer arm exploration, which consisted of two levels: unrestricted and restricted arm exploration. The dependent variable was the participant’s judgment of the farthest distance the confederate could reach. This was operationalized as the distance between the confederate’s clavicle and the to-be-reached object, once participants had directed the confederate to the position where they believed the confederate could just reach the object. Those judgments served as the basis for several measures. The present study’s results suggested arm restriction did not increase judgment error. Second, judgments did not align with observers’ capabilities better than with the confederate’s. Third, judgment error did not positively correlate with the degree of dissimilarity between observers’ and the confederate’s action capabilities. Collectively, these outcomes provide consistent evidence that observers did not base their judgments of the confederate’s reaching capabilities on observer-environment relations. Instead, these results are consistent with previous studies that support the possibility that observers based their judgments on actor-environment relations (Stoffregen et al., 1999; Ramenzoni et al., 2008a). Understanding how observers judge others’ action capabilities allows us to better predict errors that may occur in operational settings, e.g., whether a firefighter will inaccurately judge whether their partner can accomplish a given task. Human factors professionals can then develop solutions to mitigate such errors, e.g., equipment redesign to better reveal actor-environment relations.


2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 163-182 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fernanda Herrera ◽  
Soo Youn Oh ◽  
Jeremy N. Bailenson

Collaborative virtual environments (CVEs), wherein people can virtually interact with each other via avatars, are becoming increasingly prominent. However, CVEs differ in type of avatar representation and level of behavioral realism afforded to users. The present investigation compared the effect of behavioral realism on users' nonverbal behavior, self-presence, social presence, and interpersonal attraction during a dyadic interaction. Fifty-one dyads (aged 18 to 26) embodied either a full-bodied avatar with mapped hands and inferred arm movements, an avatar consisting of only a floating head and mapped hands, or a static full-bodied avatar. Planned contrasts compared the effect of behavioral realism against no behavioral realism, and compared the effect of low versus high behavioral realism. Results show that participants who embodied the avatar with only a floating head and hands experienced greater social presence, self-presence, and interpersonal attraction than participants who embodied a full-bodied avatar with mapped hands. In contrast, there were no significant differences on these measures between participants in the two mapped-hands conditions and those who embodied a static avatar. Participants in the static-avatar condition rotated their own physical head and hands significantly less than participants in the other two conditions during the dyadic interaction. Additionally, side-to-side head movements were negatively correlated with interpersonal attraction regardless of condition. We discuss implications of the finding that behavioral realism influences nonverbal behavior and communication outcomes.


1987 ◽  
Vol 64 (3) ◽  
pp. 831-846 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan Crowe ◽  
Wim Keessen ◽  
Wim Kuus ◽  
Ronald Van Vliet ◽  
Andre Zegeling

Slow arm movements were made over a smooth horizontal table at shoulder height. With visual cues excluded, target position was indicated by the index finger of the nonmoving arm touching the underside of the table. 11 students (mean age 21.9 yr.) and 24 children (mean age 10.3 yr.) were compared. Both groups showed an ‘overlap effect’: movements with the right hand went too far to the left, while movements with the left hand went too far to the right. The children as a group were significantly less accurate than the students and showed a significant asymmetry in that movements with the dominant hand were more accurate than those with the nondominant hand.


2015 ◽  
Vol 15 (12) ◽  
pp. 592
Author(s):  
Cristina de la Malla ◽  
Stijn Buiteman ◽  
Wilmer Otters ◽  
Jeroen Smeets ◽  
Eli Brenner

1999 ◽  
Vol 58 (3) ◽  
pp. 170-179 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara S. Muller ◽  
Pierre Bovet

Twelve blindfolded subjects localized two different pure tones, randomly played by eight sound sources in the horizontal plane. Either subjects could get information supplied by their pinnae (external ear) and their head movements or not. We found that pinnae, as well as head movements, had a marked influence on auditory localization performance with this type of sound. Effects of pinnae and head movements seemed to be additive; the absence of one or the other factor provoked the same loss of localization accuracy and even much the same error pattern. Head movement analysis showed that subjects turn their face towards the emitting sound source, except for sources exactly in the front or exactly in the rear, which are identified by turning the head to both sides. The head movement amplitude increased smoothly as the sound source moved from the anterior to the posterior quadrant.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document