Literature DB >> 17924810

Target selection during bimanual reaching to direct cues is unaffected by the perceptual similarity of the targets.

Neil B Albert1, Matthias Weigelt, Eliot Hazeltine, Richard B Ivry.   

Abstract

Investigations of bimanual movements have shed considerable insight on the constraints underlying our ability to perform coordinated actions. One prominent limitation is evident when people are required to produce reaching movements in which the two trajectories are of different amplitudes and/or directions. This effect, however, is only obtained when the movements are cued symbolically (e.g., letters indicate target locations); these planning costs are absent when the target locations are directly cued (J. Diedrichsen, E. Hazeltine, S. Kennerley, & R. B. Ivry, 2001). The present experiments test whether the absence of planning costs under the latter condition is due to the perceptual similarity of the direct cues. The results demonstrate that measures of response planning and execution do not depend on the perceptual similarity of the direct cues. Limitations in our ability to perform distinct actions with the two hands appear to reflect interactions related to response selection involving the translation of symbolic cues into their associated movements rather than arise from interactions associated with perception, motor programming, and motor execution. (c) 2007 APA

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17924810     DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.33.5.1107

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform        ISSN: 0096-1523            Impact factor:   3.332


  10 in total

1.  Goal congruency without stimulus congruency in bimanual coordination.

Authors:  Wilfried Kunde; Henrike Krauss; Matthias Weigelt
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2008-03-05

2.  Effects of stimulus cueing on bimanual grasp posture planning.

Authors:  Charmayne M L Hughes; Christian Seegelke; Paola Reissig; Christoph Schütz
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2012-05-05       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  Comparing movement preparation of unimanual, bimanual symmetric, and bimanual asymmetric movements.

Authors:  Jarrod Blinch; Brendan D Cameron; Erin K Cressman; Ian M Franks; Mark G Carpenter; Romeo Chua
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2014-01-01       Impact factor: 1.972

4.  The impact of cerebellar transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on learning fine-motor sequences.

Authors:  Renee E Shimizu; Allan D Wu; Jasmine K Samra; Barbara J Knowlton
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2017-01-05       Impact factor: 6.237

5.  The impact of perceptual, cognitive and motor factors on bimanual coordination.

Authors:  N M Procacci; T R Stanford
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2012-12-04

6.  A comparison of regression techniques for a two-dimensional sensorimotor rhythm-based brain-computer interface.

Authors:  Joan Fruitet; Dennis J McFarland; Jonathan R Wolpaw
Journal:  J Neural Eng       Date:  2010-01-14       Impact factor: 5.379

7.  The persistence of spatial interference after extended training in a bimanual drawing task.

Authors:  Neil B Albert; Richard B Ivry
Journal:  Cortex       Date:  2008-07-11       Impact factor: 4.027

8.  Sequence learning is preserved in individuals with cerebellar degeneration when the movements are directly cued.

Authors:  Rebecca M C Spencer; Richard B Ivry
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 3.225

9.  Increased cognitive demands boost the spatial interference effect in bimanual pointing.

Authors:  Ioana Stanciu; Stefanie C Biehl; Constanze Hesse
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2016-03-02

10.  Co-actors represent the order of each other's actions.

Authors:  Laura Schmitz; Cordula Vesper; Natalie Sebanz; Günther Knoblich
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2018-08-22
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.