Grasping and perception are both affected by irrelevant information and secondary tasks: new evidence from the Garner paradigm

Additional cognitive load decreases performance but not adaptation to a visuomotor transformation

Dual-task paradigms are procedures for investigating interference with two tasks performed simultaneously. Studies that previously addressed dual-task paradigms within a visuomotor reaching task yielded mixed results. While some of the studies found evidence of cognitive interference, called dual-task costs, other studies did not. We assume that dual-task costs only manifest themselves within the explicit component of adaptation, as it involves cognitive resources for processing. We suspect the divergent findings to be due to the lack of differentiation between the explicit and implicit component. In this study, we aimed to investigate how a cognitive secondary task affects visuomotor adaptation overall and its different components, both during and after adaptation. In a series of posttests, we examined the explicit and implicit components separately. Eighty participants performed a center-outward reaching movement with a 30° cursor perturbation. Participants were either assigned to a single task group (ST) or a dual-task group (DT) with an additional auditory 1-back task. To further enhance our predicted effect of dual-task interference on the explicit component, we added a visual feedback delay condition to both groups (ST/DT_DEL). In the other condition, participants received visual feedback immediately after movement termination (ST/DT_NoDEL). While there were clear dual-task costs during the practice phase, there were no dual-task effects on any of the posttest measures. On one hand, our findings suggest that dual-task costs in visuomotor adaptation tasks can occur with sufficient cognitive demand, and on the other hand, that cognitive constraints may affect motor performance but not necessarily motor adaptation.

The Role of Haptic Expectations in Reaching to Grasp: From Pantomime to Natural Grasps and Back Again

When we reach to pick up an object, our actions are effortlessly informed by the object's spatial information, the position of our limbs, stored knowledge of the object's material properties, and what we want to do with the object. A substantial body of evidence suggests that grasps are under the control of "automatic, unconscious" sensorimotor modules housed in the "dorsal stream" of the posterior parietal cortex. Visual online feedback has a strong effect on the hand's in-flight grasp aperture. Previous work of ours exploited this effect to show that grasps are refractory to cued expectations for visual feedback. Nonetheless, when we reach out to pretend to grasp an object (pantomime grasp), our actions are performed with greater cognitive effort and they engage structures outside of the dorsal stream, including the ventral stream. Here we ask whether our previous finding would extend to cued expectations for haptic feedback. Our method involved a mirror apparatus that allowed participants to see a "virtual" target cylinder as a reflection in the mirror at the start of all trials. On "haptic feedback" trials, participants reached behind the mirror to grasp a size-matched cylinder, spatially coincident with the virtual one. On "no-haptic feedback" trials, participants reached behind the mirror and grasped into "thin air" because no cylinder was present. To manipulate haptic expectation, we organized the haptic conditions into blocked, alternating, and randomized schedules with and without verbal cues about the availability of haptic feedback. Replicating earlier work, we found the strongest haptic effects with the blocked schedules and the weakest effects in the randomized uncued schedule. Crucially, the haptic effects in the cued randomized schedule was intermediate. An analysis of the influence of the upcoming and immediately preceding haptic feedback condition in the cued and uncued random schedules showed that cuing the upcoming haptic condition shifted the haptic influence on grip aperture from the immediately preceding trial to the upcoming trial. These findings indicate that, unlike cues to the availability of visual feedback, participants take advantage of cues to the availability of haptic feedback, flexibly engaging pantomime, and natural modes of grasping to optimize the movement.

Grasping Discriminates between Object Sizes Less Not More Accurately than the Perceptual System

Ganel, Freud, Chajut, and Algom (2012) demonstrated that maximum grip apertures (MGAs) differ significantly when grasping perceptually identical objects. From this finding they concluded that the visual size information used by the motor system is more accurate than the visual size information available to the perceptual system. A direct comparison between the accuracy in the perception and the action system is, however, problematic, given that accuracy in the perceptual task is measured using a dichotomous variable, while accuracy in the visuomotor task is determined using a continuous variable. We addressed this problem by dichotomizing the visuomotor measures. Using this approach, our results show that size discrimination in grasping is in fact inferior to perceptual discrimination therefore contradicting the original suggestion put forward by Ganel and colleagues.

When perception intrudes on 2D grasping: evidence from Garner interference

When participants reach out to pick up a real 3-D object, their grip aperture reflects the size of the object well before contact is made. At the same time, the classical psychophysical laws and principles of relative size and shape that govern visual perception do not appear to intrude into the control of such movements, which are instead tuned only to the relevant dimension for grasping. In contrast, accumulating evidence suggests that grasps directed at flat 2D objects are not immune to perceptual effects. Thus, in 2D but not 3D grasping, the aperture of the fingers has been shown to be affected by relative and contextual information about the size and shape of the target object. A notable example of this dissociation comes from studies of Garner interference, which signals holistic processing of shape. Previous research has shown that 3D grasping shows no evidence for Garner interference but 2D grasping does (Freud & Ganel, 2015). In a recent study published in this journal (Löhr-Limpens et al., 2019), participants were presented with 2D objects in a Garner paradigm. The pattern of results closely replicated the previously published results with 2D grasping. Unfortunately, the authors, who appear to be unaware the potential differences between 2D and 3D grasping, used their findings to draw an overgeneralized and unwarranted conclusion about the relation between 3D grasping and perception. In this short methodological commentary, we discuss current literature on aperture shaping during 2D grasping and suggest that researchers should play close attention to the nature of the target stimuli they use before drawing conclusions about visual processing for perception and action.