Talk:Eye–hand coordination

(Not done yet!)

Good contributions to this stub are welcome. Tony (talk) 02:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• In fact, as always, all good-faith contribs are welcome.
  --Jerzy•t 17:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  

Reversion

     I reverted both edits by 162.97.99.36 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and all four succeeding edits by 70.126.96.236 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).
     162's second edit on the accompanying article was clearly vandalism: purportedly a libelous attack on one specific person, and one less identifiable. The first was a clumsy change that would be unsuitable unless the corresponding change were made to the article title, which has stood apparently unchallenged for IIRC three years. IMO either the chg to the lead sent or the article title would be reckless w/o substantial evidence.
     On the evidence, it's unlikely that 70 is a sock of 162, but those prepared to look more closely may want to rule that out more definitively than i'm going to try to.
     (Sorry for my delay in providing this edit-summary-promised explanation.)
--Jerzy•t 17:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Ordering

This ngram indicates that while "eye-hand coordination" may well have been the original phrase, "hand-eye coordination" has been at least as common for twenty years. I strongly suspect that the distinction is fundamentally one of national variety of English, and would probably oppose a move; but I am also prepared to assume that the original text, which was altered by a transient editor, is in good faith and is correct. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Mr Anderson now appears to be stalking me and reverting what he pleases in his campaign against en dashes, of all things (part of his agenda at MOS talk). Now, I started this article many years ago, and I think I added one or two sources. Others have come along since. They look to overwhelmingly confirm the order in which items occur in the article title. If you have a problem, go find more sources and swamp the article with them (they should be good sources). Please stop stalking me. Tony (talk) 01:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the "original text" was Tony1's. The first reversal of the word order was made by a vandal. The ngram shows evidence that good sources for "hand–eye" exist, but I can't think of a good-faith reason, other than not noticing the article's history, why the first sentence should be reversed without renaming the article. Art LaPella (talk) 03:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Please read my first post: eye-hand is natural to Tony; hand-eye to me; the odds are that this is a difference in dialect. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I merely observe this campaign of unfounded reversion, and do something about it. Tony doesn't make substantive points elsewhere either. (That a substantial minority, and formerly a majority, of sources use eye-hand is not inconsistent with the statement made. ) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The first post you want me to read says: "I am also prepared to assume that the original text, which was altered by a transient editor, is in good faith and is correct." But this is the original text. That means you are prepared to assume that Tony1's version is in good faith and correct. That isn't what you meant, so what did you mean? Are you calling the vandal's version the original version, and the article's original author, Tony1, "transient"? Tony1 has reverted "hand–eye" every time in less than 24 hours, so in no sense was it the original version. If we agree that the original version was Tony1's, then the reason why the article title should match the first sentence falls into perspective, whether or not they should both be reversed. Art LaPella (talk) 04:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a stupid debate. Sep is merely being WP:POINTY. If there are two legitimate terms of comparable frequency, then there is no need to reverse their order, and certainly no reason to edit war over it. And if it is a difference in dialect, then we normally leave it in the dialect the article was written. It does fit with Sep's crusade against dashes, which he evidently feels he can't win on its merits.

BTW, I personally prefer Sep's order of "hand–eye coordination", and that's how I would have written it, but it's really a non-issue. — kwami (talk) 08:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of who has what agenda, what is or isn't happening elsewhere on Wikipedia or who followed who home to put TP on the topiary, I've only ever heard it as "hand-eye coordination." I'm an American. If Septrionalis/Anderson is too, then perhaps the idea that it's a dialect thing has merit. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at the refs. Most are US-based. DF you seem to base your stylistic input on what you perceive are strongly differentiated varieties of the language (for example, you use "dialect", which is not appropriate in my view); are you sure you don't exaggerate the distinctions? I am aware of no particular differentiation here, and even if there were (as I said, I don't think this is the case), are you suggesting that US English should be used throughout WP? Why don't you start mounting a campaign against the use of other varieties? Tony (talk) 14:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Neither of us has suggested or edited to impose American English; the probability that hand-eye is an Americanism is what deters me from a move request. Observing that the more accurate text did use hyphens, I have restored the dashes; it is content, not style, that concerns me here. The question of style is intriguing; three of the sources do hyphenate (and so does the text, outside the lead), but this may not be another case of Tony inventing an idiom. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Sep's ngram data scarcely changes if you restrict it to American English, so that wouldn't seem to be the reason. I've also only heard "hand–eye coordination"; the current title sounds odd to me. But the claim that the current title is "less common" is hardly supported by the data, which show them to be approximately equal. (I find this surprising, actually, but I'm accepting it at face value.) I don't see how Sep could say this "may not be another case of Tony inventing an idiom", when he demonstrates conclusively that it is not. Unless, of course, Tony wrote half of all the English literature on the subject. — kwami (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• I hope this isn't merely a smokescreen to rid wikipedia of this intervening endash. Although I would personally put it as 'hand–eye', the other way round is also acceptable. What PMA has done can be considered a subject name change by the back door; he must file at WP:RM in order to change the title; failure to do so would be a violation of WP:RETAIN. As to the dash, that is a matter to be discussed at WT:MOS, and not here. Nor is edit-warring over it a solution. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
• Doing a very superficial google search, google books has about 80% of hits using "eye-hand" and 20% using "hand-eye"[1]. Google Scholar has similar percentages[2]. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Neural mechanisms section

This is problematic without referencing. Yet the section has been there since the year dot. Should we remove it until sources are found? I'd hate to find that it's erroneous. Tony (talk) 10:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems to be high time to remove this and other sections that lack references. I am going to go ahead and remove that section but we should also consider removing (parts of) the others. a.buchhorn (talk) 11:58, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Boldly "Eye–hand coordination" > "Hand–eye coordination"

It looks like it's been eight years since there's been discussion as to whether this article should be titled "Eye–hand coordination" or "Hand–eye coordination". In the article history there is some drive-by edit warring over the issue over recent years. The Google NGram shows "hand–eye" overtook "eye–hand" decades ago and has continued to be dominant. The Google and JSTOR search results (below) shows that "hand–eye" maintains a lead over "eye–hand" in the literature, and in common usage, "hand–eye coordination" is the clear favorite (7 million web results) over "eye–hand coordination" (2 million results). (Note: in search results, it doesn't matter if you use a space, hyphen, or dash; the results are the same.)

	"hand eye coordination"	"eye hand coordination"
Google web	7,000,000	2,090,000
Google books	115,000	101,000
Google scholar	35,600	32,000
Google NGram	0.0...1615%	0.0...1404%
JSTOR	821	808

Per the above, does anyone object to my boldly flipping the redirect by copying the content of this article to Hand–eye coordination, and turning this article into a redirect to that one? Since it's been so long, I wonder if there is still any objection; if there is, I can open up a formal request. Thank you. Leviv ich 18:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks to you for slogging through to find a justification for "HEC". I read a lot, mostly US sources, and never heard of "EHC". You have shown that EHC is a terminological variant. EHC may originate from the field of expertise of the person who started the article, or from their geographical situation. I'm in agreement with you, though I'm under the impression that a "move" is more orthodox.--Quisqualis (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Google en grams is up to 2007, in books. Eye–hand coordination is far more common in medicine, biology, and psychology. I do oppose such a change. Tony (talk) 04:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Looks like PubMed gives EH a bit of an edge: HE 1,313, EH 1,601. Leviv ich 06:08, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Optic apraxia

Would this source be appropriate to expand this section? Oculomotor Apraxia - American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus (aapos.org) a.buchhorn (talk) 12:34, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Dr. Matz-Lennart Larsson appears to have made major additions on his own behalf

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Eye%E2%80%93hand_coordination&diff=prev&oldid=991303408

This major 2020 edit adds an entire main section at the beginning of the article, called Evolution of eye–hand coordination. This introduces a substantial transformation of the bulk of this general background article on eye-hand coordination. The addition consists entirely of reporting on a human evolutionary theory called an "eye-forelimb hypothesis" ("EF hypothesis") by Matz-Lennart Larsson. It is interesting, but it is, even after 12 years, as yet a niche concept hardly warranting being placed at the forefront of the science. Google Scholar shows only a handful of citations of the original work, and none that I can see by major researchers in the area.

The editor is a transient, one-shot user whose name happens to be named User:MatzLennart, which is also the first name of the author of the eye-forelimb hypothesis, Dr. Matz-Lennart Larsson aka Matz Larsson. I therefore assume he added this himself. Last seen as an orthopedic consultant of Örebro University Hospital in Sweden. Not much trace of him, but ResearchGate shows his laboratory affiliations to Lund University.

For now, I can't see any other solution but to have removed the entire entry. With the danger of influencing science, it should not be placed without justification. I paste the text in question at the bottom of this topic to save it for reference on how and to what extent to apply it here or on another page. I actually will send the researcher a courtesy e-mail to him and to his doctoral supervisor to try to understand how to address this. Until then, I think it should stay off the page entirely, except perhaps for a link to the two articles. I don't have time to get to this right now.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Matz-Larsson-2

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hanne-Tonnesen

https://loop.frontiersin.org/people/220922/publications

Zelchenko (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Dear Zelchenko,

I am glad you found the text about evolution of eye forelimb interesting. However, I doubt you have read any of the three original articles, since you label it a "human evolution hypothesis". That is wrong, the hypothesis is about vertebrate species in general. If you read e.g. the first article (in Brain, Behavior and Evolution), you will find that it provides a comprehensive analysis of the vertebrate group. Primates is just a special case.

The hypothesis is published in three (not two) different and good scientific journals after rigorous peer review. I quickly checked data concerning the last publication, (in Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution) and found that it had more citations than 77% of other Frontiers articles and 96% more reads than other Frontiers articles, and - more important, the number of citations are steadily increasing.

It is fine that you strive to improve the quality of Wikipedia, and it may be a good idea to move the text to a more convenient place in the chapter about eye hand coordination.

I am looking forward to read the courtesy e letter you promised to send to the author (yes it is me).

Kind regards

Matz Larsson 78.82.245.116 (talk) 19:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Evolution

The eye–forelimb hypothesis

The eye–forelimb (EF) hypothesis suggests that the primate visual system changed in parallel with the specialization of the hand through a common evolutionary mechanism. The ultimate result became accurate depth perception, speed and exactness of the hand when it is gripping.

Primates and binocular vision

Primates, including humans, have eyes that are directed forward. Primates also have an optic chiasm (OC), with 45 percent made up of uncrossed nerves. The traditional idea is that such vision combined with high-grade binocularity to promote deep vision. But an overview article in Brain, Behavior and Evolution presents a new eye–forelimb hypothesis (EF hypothesis) that the neural architecture of primates' visual system evolved for a totally different purpose. The EF hypothesis postulates that it has selective value to have short neural pathways between areas of the brain that receive visual information about the hand and the motor nuclei that control the coordination of the hand. The heart of the EF hypothesis is that evolutionary transformation in OC will affect the length of these neural pathways.

A way to test the hypothesis is to compare the precision and speed of, for example, the left hand when performing tasks in the left and right field of view respectively. Several such experiments have been carried out. Though they were not done primarily to test the EF hypothesis, the results are clearly in accordance with the hypothesis: a higher precision and speed as long as the hand works in the ipsilateral field of vision. Berlucchi et al. believes that the hand's reactions to visual stimuli that are presented in the ipsilateral field of vision are integrated into the contralateral hemisphere, which results in fewer synapses for the signals to pass, resulting in faster motor skills than with visual stimuli presented counter-laterally.

Primates and felines skillfully use their anterior limbs under supervision of the eye. Primates and felines have a high proportion of ipsilateral retinal projections (IRP) (45% respectively 30% IRP). The fact that crocodiles, most birds and fishes lack IRP is also accommodated by the EF hypothesis. For anatomical/functional reasons, crocodiles, birds and fishes have little use of the anterior limb in their frontal space.

The African clawed frog (Xenopus laevis) has only crossed projections before the metamorphosis, thereafter it develops binocular vision and anterior extremities with claws. Xenopus laevis uses its claws when it catches prey situated in front of the frog. Dolphins lack IRP, which is consistent with the hypothesis because the anterior extremity of the dolphin (the pectoral fin) is used only laterally. Among marsupials, three tree-climbing species have a high proportion of IRP. Vombater (Vombatidae), has very few IRP, which is in accordance with the EF hypothesis since it is a terrestrial herbivore. That kind of foraging reduces the need of excellent visual control of the forefoot. The other marsupials fall between these extremes.

The EF hypothesis offers new perspectives on human evolution. Excellent eye–hand control are typical features of primates. Fossil evidence suggests that the first actual primates appeared about 55 million years ago. Even then, the hand seems to have been specialized to grip. Early primate ancestors may have developed this special grip to retrieve and eat flowers, nectar, and leaves in the distal branches of trees. Bloch and Boyer claim that the hand's grip ability evolved before the visual specialization of the primates. The EF hypothesis, on the contrary, indicates that the primate vision system evolved in parallel with the specialization of the hand through a common evolutionary mechanism. In principle an increase in IRP has selective value in animals that regularly use the anterior limb in the frontal field of vision. Zelchenko (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

References