Back

Baseline dependent differences in the perception of changes in visuomotor delay

Vigh, G.; Limanowski, J.

2024-12-13 animal behavior and cognition
10.1101/2024.06.20.599936 bioRxiv
Show abstract

The detection of, and adaptation to delayed visual movement feedback has been extensively studied. One important open question is whether the Weber-Fechner Laws hold in the domain of visuomotor delay; i.e., whether the perception of changes in visuomotor delay depends on the amount of delay already present during movement. To address this, we developed a virtual reality based, continuous hand movement task, during which participants had to detect changes in visuomotor mapping (delay): Participants (N=40) performed continuous, auditory-paced grasping movements, which were measured with a data glove and transmitted to a virtual hand model. The movements of the virtual hand were delayed between 0-700ms with the delay changing repeatedly in a roving oddball design. Participants had to indicate any perceived delay changes by key press. This design allowed us to investigate detection accuracy and speed related to the magnitude of the delay change, and to the "baseline" delay present during movement, respectively. As expected, larger delay changes were detected more accurately than smaller ones. Surprisingly, delay changes were detected more accurately and faster when participants moved under large > small delays. These results suggest that visual movement feedback delay indeed affects the detection of changes in visuomotor delay, but not as predicted by the Weber-Fechner Laws. Instead, bodily action under small delays may have entailed a larger tolerance for delay changes due to embodiment-related intersensory conflict attenuation; whereas better change detection at large delays may have resulted from their (visual) saliency due to a strong violation of visuomotor predictions.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.