Literature DB >> 23329205

Explicit knowledge and real-time action control: anticipating a change does not make us respond more quickly.

Brendan D Cameron1, Darian T Cheng, Romeo Chua, Paul van Donkelaar, Gordon Binsted.   

Abstract

When the target of a goal-directed reach changes location, people normally respond rapidly and automatically to the target shift. Here, we investigate whether explicit knowledge about a moving target (knowing whether a location change is likely/unlikely) improves responsiveness, with the goal of understanding top-down effects on real-time reaching. In Experiment 1, we presented participants with pre-cues that indicated a 20 or 80% likelihood of a target perturbation on that trial. When participants made pro-pointing responses to the target perturbations, their online response occurred later for 20% trials than for 80% trials, but this effect may have been due to suppression of the online response on 20% trials, rather than enhancement of the response on 80% trials. In Experiment 2, we presented participants with 50 and 100% likelihood pre-cues, and observed no shortening of the latency on 100% trials compared to 50% trials, which suggests that expectation does not enhance the automatic response to a perturbation. However, we did observe more vigorous responses to the perturbation on the 100% trials, and this contributed to shorter movement times relative to the 50% trials. We also examined, in Experiment 2, whether prior knowledge about the direction of the target perturbation would shorten the latency of the online response, but we did not observe any reduction in latency. In sum, the onset of the automatic response appears to be suppressible, but not augmentable by top-down input. The possibility that the forcefulness of the automatic response is modifiable by expectation is examined, but not resolved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23329205     DOI: 10.1007/s00221-013-3401-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Exp Brain Res        ISSN: 0014-4819            Impact factor:   1.972


  29 in total

1.  Voluntary modification of automatic arm movements evoked by motion of a visual target.

Authors:  B L Day; I N Lyon
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  Fast corrections of movements with a computer mouse.

Authors:  Eli Brenner; Jeroen B J Smeets
Journal:  Spat Vis       Date:  2003

3.  No automatic pilot for visually guided aiming based on colour.

Authors:  Erin K Cressman; Ian M Franks; James T Enns; Romeo Chua
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2005-11-24       Impact factor: 1.972

4.  The antipointing task: vector inversion is supported by a perceptual estimate of visual space.

Authors:  Matthew Heath; Anika Maraj; Meaghan Maddigan; Gordon Binsted
Journal:  J Mot Behav       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 1.328

5.  Reach adaptation to online target error.

Authors:  Brendan D Cameron; Ian M Franks; J Timothy Inglis; Romeo Chua
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2011-01-26       Impact factor: 1.972

6.  The Psychophysics Toolbox.

Authors:  D H Brainard
Journal:  Spat Vis       Date:  1997

7.  Reach adaptation to explicit vs. implicit target error.

Authors:  Brendan D Cameron; Ian M Franks; J Timothy Inglis; Romeo Chua
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2010-04-11       Impact factor: 1.972

8.  Visual control of reaching movements without vision of the limb. II. Evidence of fast unconscious processes correcting the trajectory of the hand to the final position of a double-step stimulus.

Authors:  D Pélisson; C Prablanc; M A Goodale; M Jeannerod
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  1986       Impact factor: 1.972

9.  The role of visual attention in saccadic eye movements.

Authors:  J E Hoffman; B Subramaniam
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1995-08

10.  Avoiding moving obstacles.

Authors:  M Pilar Aivar; Eli Brenner; Jeroen B J Smeets
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2008-07-16       Impact factor: 1.972

View more
  2 in total

1.  Online Control of Prehension Predicts Performance on a Standardized Motor Assessment Test in 8- to 12-Year-Old Children.

Authors:  Caroline C V Blanchard; Hannah L McGlashan; Blandine French; Rachel J Sperring; Bianca Petrocochino; Nicholas P Holmes
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2017-03-16

2.  The role of differential delays in integrating transient visual and proprioceptive information.

Authors:  Brendan D Cameron; Cristina de la Malla; Joan López-Moliner
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2014-02-03
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.