Phenomenal Versus Process Explanations of Prism Aftereffects
- 1 March 1998
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Taylor & Francis in Journal of Motor Behavior
- Vol. 30 (1) , 44-50
- https://doi.org/10.1080/00222899809601321
Abstract
The phenomenal hypothesis that prism aftereffects depend upon sight of the limb was tested in a ball-throwing task during prism exposure; the participant's (N = 28) limb was either visible or not visible, but feedback from the moving ball was available during the exposure. Aftereffects were clearly demonstrated in both the visible- and nonvisible-limb conditions, and total aftereffect was larger for participants in the nonvisible-limb condition. Proprioceptive aftereffects were greater than visual aftereffects in the visible-limb group; however, the reverse was true for the nonvisible-limb group. Those results support a processing hypothesis in which sensory feedback, not phenomenal experience, is necessary.Keywords
This publication has 21 references indexed in Scilit:
- Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct.American Psychologist, 1992
- Adaptive Mechanisms in Perceptual-Motor CoordinationJournal of Motor Behavior, 1988
- Head posture effects in prism adaptation during hallway exposurePerception & Psychophysics, 1988
- Components of prism adaptation in terminal and concurrent exposure: Organization of the eye-hand coordination loopPerception & Psychophysics, 1988
- Sources of “overadditivity” in prism adaptationPerception & Psychophysics, 1978
- Allocation of attention and the locus of adaptation tp displaced vision.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1975
- No retinal component in prism adaptationActa Psychologica, 1974
- Adaptation to displaced vision: Variations on the “prismatic-shaping” techniquePerception & Psychophysics, 1971
- A Passive Test of the Held Reafference HypothesisPerceptual and Motor Skills, 1965
- Plasticity in Human Sensorimotor ControlScience, 1963