Literature DB >> 20880259

Are temporal response features prepared in fixed order? Inferences from movement-related potentials.

Hartmut Leuthold1, Ines Jentzsch.   

Abstract

Using a response precuing task, we investigated whether motor preparation of temporal response features follows a fixed order as implied by the generalized motor program (GMP) view. Relative timing and overall duration of sequential key presses were factorially manipulated. Precues either provided no information, provided partial information about relative or overall duration, or fully specified the response. Reaction time decreased with the amount of advance information, reflecting the reduction of response alternatives by the precue and influences on preparatory motor processes. The contingent negative variation (CNV) over the left but not the medial and right motor regions increased with the amount of advance information provided. The foreperiod lateralized readiness potential indicated hand-specific activation for the full precue condition only. These findings disagree with the assumption that a GMP's invariant and variable response features are prepared in fixed order.
Copyright © 2010 Society for Psychophysiological Research.

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20880259     DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2010.01126.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychophysiology        ISSN: 0048-5772            Impact factor:   4.016


  6 in total

1.  A cognitive framework for explaining serial processing and sequence execution strategies.

Authors:  Willem B Verwey; Charles H Shea; David L Wright
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2015-02

2.  Preparation of timing structure involves two independent sub-processes.

Authors:  Dana Maslovat; Romeo Chua; Stuart T Klapp; Ian M Franks
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2017-05-31

3.  Vibrotactile cuing revisited to reveal a possible challenge to sensorimotor adaptation.

Authors:  Beom-Chan Lee; Timothy A Thrasher; Charles S Layne; Bernard J Martin
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2016-08-08       Impact factor: 1.972

4.  Neural Mechanisms of the Contextual Interference Effect and Parameter Similarity on Motor Learning in Older Adults: An EEG Study.

Authors:  Meysam Beik; Hamidreza Taheri; Alireza Saberi Kakhki; Majid Ghoshuni
Journal:  Front Aging Neurosci       Date:  2020-06-12       Impact factor: 5.750

Review 5.  The Way We Do the Things We Do: How Cognitive Contexts Shape the Neural Dynamics of Motor Areas in Humans.

Authors:  Franck Vidal; Boris Burle; Thierry Hasbroucq
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2018-07-27

6.  Task relevance determines binding of effect features in action planning.

Authors:  Viola Mocke; Lisa Weller; Christian Frings; Klaus Rothermund; Wilfried Kunde
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2020-11       Impact factor: 2.199

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.