Questions related to Perception and Action
I have two questions regarding DCM.
My experiment: I have a 2x2 factorial design with the factors movement (active/passive) and feedback (visual/audiovisual). Subjects move their hand (active condition) or their hand is moved by a machine (passive conditon). Feedback about the movement is given either by visual feedback (visual condition) or by both auditive and visual feedback (audiovisual condition). Data was acquired in 5 sessions separated by a short break. Data acquisition was stopped between sessions. I therefore have to concatenate the sessions before extracting the eigenvariates.
My questions are:
1. I concatenated the sessions before extracting eigenvariates using two different approaches. First, I used spm_fmri_concatenate. Second, I modelled the session regressors in first level (similar to the PPI exercise in SPM manual). The results are similar, but they are quite different from the original results (without concatenation). Is this possible? If so, what would be the way to proceed?
2. In my first DCM analysis I am interested in connectivity differences during active and passive movements leading to visual feedback. I do not want to analyze the influence of audiovisual feedback. How to proceed best? In my models, I can not simply neglect the audiovisual condition because they might be influencing activity in the visual cortex. A first option would be to model the audiovisual feedback in the first level design matrix and use, during the extraction of the eigenvariates, an effect-of-interest contrast that excludes the time series variability related to the audiovisual conditions. In my DCM analysis, I then do not have to account for the effect of audiovisual feedback anymore. A second option would be to extract the time series without trying to remove the audiovisual effects, but instead model these effects for instance as direct inputs (C-matrix) in the visual and the auditory cortex (and perhaps also in the B-matrix), but considerung this parameter as parameter-of-no-interest. What would be your suggestions on this?
We know that:
- Tools and objects are represented both in visual areas and in sensorimotor areas
- Tools are identified more easily when we observe them being used in a canonical way
- They can extend our functional space when used Article Tools for the Body (schema)
We also know that:
- Objects or action recipients are identified more easily when visually presented along their tools in a canonical way
- Graspable objects elicit faster and enhanced components than non-graspable objects or graspable objects presented outside of reach (TMS + ERPs)
However, I cannot find results suggesting that whilst holding and using a tool (e.g., a screwdriver) the action recipient (the object on which the tool is meant to be used; e.g., a screw) will be identified more easily than another object on which the tool isn't of any use (e.g., a pencil). Furthermore, I wonder whether visual features of the action recipient (e.g., its color) could be identified faster whilst holding and using the tool as compared to if that feature was on another object.
- Research manuscripts are handled on the basis of herd perception.
- The Editor-reviewer combine wheels herd perception into action the moment the submission is received.
- How can we leap-frog over herd perception?
- Does herd perception ensure obliteration of new avenues of thought?
- If so, whose loss is it anyway? Does the personality of the Editor herself /himself play a large role in this matter?
- Is acceptance for publication something of a chance roulette-play like fact-of-life?
- How can potential authors better understand the highly subjective process of manuscript review in the face of stiff competition?
- How can potential authors use caustic and insensitive comments of anonymous reviewers to their favour?
- Do medical journals/periodicals place a low premium on originality but a high exaggerated premium on simply knowing the ropes of publication?
- Does the finesse of language and complex statistics with at least 4 p values ensure publication?
- Or is it attractive diagrams and fancy algorithms or line-figures that reduce the speculative component of an article and give it greater legitimacy?
- Do Ethical Committees really care to exhaustively study the issues involved? Or do they simple form a bottleneck road-block for the ingenious and the ingenuous?
- Does a flash of genius frighten the Editor-reviewer combine? Does it irritate them? Do they, sometimes as competing scientists in direct violation of ethical propriety, deliberately fob off authors that do not toe their own line of thinking in a flagrant conflict of interest? Is this a form of inappropriate hostility? If so, are editors and reviewers accountable? Can they be held accountable? If so, in what manner and by what body or Organization?
- Has publication become a ritual with the prescribed format that is inviolable and easily overrules the content?
- Does getting a research grant involve lying? Who will fund a nascent idea that breaks fresh ground or challenges the status quo?
- Can the concept of venture funding or crowd sourcing be applied to help see a compelling idea to fruition?
- Will an author "collective" ever emerge to balance the present hopelessly skewed process of medical manuscript processing?
- Does the Ombudsman ever help?
- Is the pressure to publish scrapping the bottom of the barrel and putting bizarre contents before the Editor? Bizarre associations? Salami science?
- Is the RCT format a sure fire way of putting speculation into publication?
- Do ingenues fare better than artless males in the quest to become authors in a male-dominated field?
- Can we name at least ten female Editors?
- Are female Editors more sensitive and less abrasive? And what about female reviewers?
- Is race and Institution or origin of any consequence? Should it be?
- How can we control the disappointment and the anger of rejection of manuscripts that seems unjust to us?
Coupling of eye gaze data with fluid external video tracking of performance in dynamic motor skill performance
Seeing an object that affords grasping potentiates the motor pathways responsible for the bodily act of grasping. Are there any examples in which a stimulus potentiates the brain area responsible for certain mental acts? e.g. Does seeing a bunch of numbers potentiate the brain area responsible for arithmetic? Does seeing a person facing in a different direction to you potentiate the brain area responsible for mental self-rotation?
Is there any report on effect of blood pressure (SBP and DBP) on short-time perception/short-interval time estimation, a cognitive attribute in human?
Action and perception interactions are being studied extensively however I have not been able to find experiments which test in a single paradigm both action perception and perception to action influences.
This is how I describe it: "the notion - morphological computation - in soft robotics views the mechanical circuits in the embodiment as a computational resource for both perception and action."
I am looking for papers that compared reaction times to haptic and visual stimuli. Preferably, the haptic stimulus should have a kinesthetic component, but I would also be happy to know about studies using a purely tactile stimulation.
In the last years I have studied how CNS and Spinal Cord interact for generating a reaching movement.
I'm writing on the current opinions about how CNS controls reaching movements. Because there are a lot of different positions about this topic i want to be sure that no one is omitted in my thesis.
So, in your opinion, which are the parameters encoded by the motor cortex in a motor command? Or, in other words, how CNS controls reaching movements?
I am looking for any experience or paper in which a coach/teacher designs affordances into learning programmes, especially in motor learning and acquisition of movement skills, in nonlinear pedagogy and constraints-led approach.
I am looking for any experience or publication about how a coach can create a learning environment, in learning design, for exploiting self-organisation coordination tendencies that exist in human movement systems?
I have a situation where I'm controlling my robot, which has a Kinect, via Matlab. I also have matlab code that gets depth information directly from Kinect. The robots actuators behave in synchronous fashion, i.e., the Matlab code won't return unless the action is completed. Thus, during action execution, I'm not getting depth information.
I would like to keep getting depth info from the kinect (perception) in thread/process 1 and would like to send signals to actuators, if necessary, in another thread/process. The tricky part is that the perception and action may or may not communicate with each other, i.e., they may or may not be independent. This being said, parfor etc in Matlab is not a good option for me since this is not parallel computation, rather two parallel processes that are completely different.
I'm using Freenect wrapper for perception and iCreate_toolbox wrapper for actuation, in Matlab.
I am looking for examples of real-world tasks (e.g. jobs, situations, etc.) where habitual motor responses are a factor, for good or for bad.
For example, a situation where a simple motor task or response is performed many times in rapid succession, until it becomes 'automatic', and then when there is eventually a need to withhold from performing this task/response it is difficult to do so.
Any help would be much appreciated.
In modeling biologic rhythmic actions as limit-cycles, it has been reported that a negative Duffing term (i.e. -x^3) represents decreasing of variability near reversal points (or softening spring). The question is what type of "variability" we mean here? Spatial? Temporal? Any other type?
How could it be proved or visualized based on Duffing equations or any other method that variability decreases near reversal points?
Does participation in sport help during a research project? Recreation, it has been said, may well promote serious creativity. Through what psychological mechanism, in your opinion does this work? In what vigorous activities do you participate and how does it improve your research? What frame of mind does this activity inspire in you? How does that attitude affect your serious work?
I contend that it has influenced the emergence of positive psychology, led to the application of mental practice in a variety of settings (including rehabilitation) and enhanced our understanding of motor cognition, and finally, inspired the interdisciplinary fields of physical activity and social cognitive neuroscience. What are your thoughts?
Do we perceive light, sound, and so on? Or, do we perceive the world, as such; the shape, size, location, of things in the world? Or, do we perceive the world in relation to ourselves, and ourselves in relation to the world?