Biomedical subjects

Maggie Shiffrar

Publications and source records attributed to Maggie Shiffrar.

7 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2007

Perception of human motion.

Humans, being highly social creatures, rely heavily on the ability to perceive what others are doing and to infer from gestures and expressions what others may be intending to do. These perceptual skills are easily mastered by most, but not all, people, in large part because human action readily communicates intentions and feelings. In recent years, remarkable advances have been made in our understanding of the visual, motoric, and affective influences on perception of human action, as well as in the elucidation of the neural concomitants of perception of human action. This article reviews those advances and, where possible, draws links among those findings.

Animals↗

PubMed2006

Perceptual-motor deficits in children with Down syndrome: implications for intervention.

Early intervention approaches for facilitating motor development in infants and children with Down syndrome have traditionally emphasised the acquisition of motor milestones. As increasing evidence suggests that motor milestones have limited predictive power for long-term motor outcomes, researchers have shifted their focus to understanding the underlying perceptual-motor competencies that influence motor behaviour in Down syndrome. This paper outlines a series of studies designed to evaluate the nature and extent of perceptual-motor impairments present in children with Down syndrome. 12 children with Down syndrome between the ages of 8-15 years with adaptive ages between 3-7 years (mean age = 5.6 years +/- 1.45 years) and a group of 12 typically developing children between the ages of 4-8 years (mean age = 5.4 +/- 1.31 years) were tested on their ability to make increasingly complex perceptual discriminations of motor behaviours. The results indicate that children with Down syndrome are able to make basic perceptual discriminations but show impairments in the perception of complex visual motion cues. The implications of these results for early intervention are discussed.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2005

Hand movement observation by individuals born without hands: phantom limb experience constrains visual limb perception.

Increasing evidence suggests that the visual analysis of other people's actions depends upon the observer's own body representation or schema. This raises the question of how differences in observers' body structure and schema impact their perception of human movement. We investigated the visual experiences of two persons born without arms, one with and the other without phantom sensations. These participants, plus six normally-limbed control observers, viewed depictions of upper limb movement under conditions of apparent motion. Consistent with previous results (Shiffrar M, Freyd JJ (1990) Psychol Sci 1:257), normally-limbed observers perceived rate-dependent paths of apparent human movement. Specifically, biologically impossible motion trajectories were reported at rapid display rates while biologically possible trajectories were reported at slow display rates. The aplasic individual with phantom experiences showed the same perceptual pattern as control participants, while the aplasic individual without phantom sensations did not. These preliminary results suggest that phantom experiences may constrain the visual analysis of the human body. These results further suggest that it may be time to move beyond the question of whether aplasic phantoms exist and instead focus on the question of why some people with limb aplasia experience phantom sensations while others do not. In this light, the current results suggest that somesthetic representations are not sufficient to define body schema. Instead, neural systems matching action observation, action execution and motor imagery likely contribute to the definition of body schema in profound ways. Additional research with aplasic individuals, having and lacking phantom sensations, is needed to resolve this issue.

Amputees↗

PubMed2005

Walking perception by walking observers.

People frequently analyze the actions of other people for the purpose of action coordination. To understand whether such self-relative action perception differs from other-relative action perception, the authors had observers either compare their own walking speed with that of a point-light walker or compare the walking speeds of 2 point-light walkers. In Experiment 1, observers walked, bicycled, or stood while performing a gait-speed discrimination task. Walking observers demonstrated the poorest sensitivity to walking speed, suggesting that perception and performance of the same action alters visual-motion processes. Experiments 2-6 demonstrated that the processes used during self-relative and other-relative action perception differ significantly in their dependence on observers' previous motor experience, current motor effort, and potential for action coordination. These results suggest that the visual analysis of human motion during traditional laboratory studies can differ substantially from the visual analysis of human movement under more realistic conditions.

Computers↗

PubMed2005

Recognizing people from their movement.

Human observers demonstrate impressive visual sensitivity to human movement. What defines this sensitivity? If motor experience influences the visual analysis of action, then observers should be most sensitive to their own movements. If view-dependent visual experience determines visual sensitivity to human movement, then observers should be most sensitive to the movements of their friends. To test these predictions, participants viewed sagittal displays of point-light depictions of themselves, their friends, and strangers performing various actions. In actor identification and discrimination tasks, sensitivity to one's own motion was highest. Visual sensitivity to friends', but not strangers', actions was above chance. Performance was action dependent. Control studies yielded chance performance with inverted and static displays, suggesting that form and low-motion cues did not define performance. These results suggest that both motor and visual experience define visual sensitivity to human action.

Affect↗

PubMed2004

Experience, context, and the visual perception of human movement.

Why are human observers particularly sensitive to human movement? Seven experiments examined the roles of visual experience and motor processes in human movement perception by comparing visual sensitivities to point-light displays of familiar, unusual, and impossible gaits across gait-speed and identity discrimination tasks. In both tasks, visual sensitivity to physically possible gaits was superior to visual sensitivity to physically impossible gaits, supporting perception-action coupling theories of human movement perception. Visual experience influenced walker-identity perception but not gait-speed discrimination. Thus, both motor experience and visual experience define visual sensitivity to human movement. An ecological perspective can be used to define the conditions necessary for experience-dependent sensitivity to human movement.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2002

Active versus passive processing of biological motion.

Johansson's point-light walker figures remain one of the most powerful and convincing examples of the role that motion can play in the perception of form (Johansson, 1973 Perception & Psychophysics 14 201 - 211; 1975 Scientific American 232(6) 76 - 88). In the current work, we use a dual-task paradigm to explore the role of attention in the processing of such stimuli. In two experiments we find striking differences in the degree to which direction-discrimination performance in point-light walker displays appears to rely on attention. Specifically, we find that performance in displays thought to involve top-down processing, either in time (experiment 1) or space (experiment 2) is adversely affected by dividing attention. In contrast, dividing attention has little effect on performance in displays that allow low-level, bottom-up computations to be carried out. We interpret these results using the active/passive motion distinction introduced by Cavanagh (1991 Spatial Vision 5 303-309).

Attention↗