Movement times to the first target in a 2-target sequence are typically slower than in 1-target aiming tasks. The 1-target movement time advantage has been shown to emerge regardless of hand preference, the hand used, the amount of practice, and the availability of visual feedback. The authors tested central and peripheral explanations of the 1-target advantage, as postulated by the movement integration hypothesis, by asking participants to perform single-target movements, 2-target movements with 1 limb, and 2-target movements in which they switched limbs at the first target. Reaction time and movement time data showed a 1-target advantage that was similar for both 1- and 2-limb sequential aiming movements. This outcome demonstrates that the processes underlying the increase in movement time to the 1st target in 2-target sequences are not specific to the limb, suggesting that the 1-target advantage originates at a central rather than a peripheral level.

No abstract

Research has revealed that individuals with Down syndrome (DS) have elevated reaction times, longer movement times, and greater movement errors during single-target single-limb actions compared to their typically developing (TD) peers. These perceptualmotor impairments have been attributed to both central processes and the physical phenotype associated with DS. The purpose of the present study was to directly investigate these possible central and peripheral deficits by examining how individuals with DS plan and execute more complex movements. Three groups (DS, TD, and individuals with an undifferentiated intellectual disability; UID) of 8 participants completed a single target movement, a two-target movement performed by a single arm, and a two-target movement where the first movement was performed with one arm and the second movement performed with the other arm. For all groups and all conditions, movement times revealed a one-target advantage (OTA). Specifically, times to the first target were longer in the two-target responses compared to the single-target response. In general, the OTA finding reveals that persons with DS utilise planning strategies similar to their TD peers when performing sequential actions involving two targets and two arms. Furthermore, because the OTA was observed in both the single-and two-arm two-target responses the interference in movement one associated with having to make a subsequent movement is not due to peripheral processes associated with single limb constraints. Rather, individuals with DS treat movements within a sequence as functionally dependent. Thus, the central processes associated with the timing of the implementation of the second element of the movement appear to be responsible for the interference that leads to the OTA. MOVEMENT INTEGRATION IN PERSONS WITH DOWN SYNDROME3

It is well reported that movement times to the first target in a two-target sequence are slower than when a single target response is required. This one-target advantage has been shown to emerge when the two-target sequence is performed with the same limb and when the first and second segments within the sequence are performed with different limbs (i.e., when there is a switch between limbs at the first target). The present study examined the functional dependency between response segments in both single and two limb sequential aiming by varying the accuracy demands at the first and second target.Results revealed that, for both one and two limb conditions, the one-target advantage was present with large first targets but not with small first targets. Additionally, when the first target was large and the second target was small, spatial variability at the first target was significantly less (or constrained more) in both one and two limb conditions compared to conditions requiring only a single target response. These findings suggest that similar principles underlie the one-target advantage in both single and two limb sequential movements.

The perceptual-motor impairments of individuals with Down syndrome (DS) are attributed to central (e.g., neurophysiology deficits that affect the retrieval or initiation of motor programs) and peripheral (e.g., anatomical deficits relating to issues with inertia of limb mechanics and muscle organization) processes. However, recent research suggests that central deficits do not affect the integration between movements. We investigate the impact of central and peripheral DS deficits on movement integration by examining the planning and execution of multiple-target multiple-arm movements. Individuals with DS, typically developing (TD), and individuals with an undifferentiated intellectual disability (UID) completed five aiming tasks: a one target; a one-arm, two-target extension; a two-arm, two-target extension (movement one was performed with one arm and movement two performed with the other); a one-arm, two-target reversal; and a two-arm, two-target reversal. Movement times (MTs) to the first target were longer in the two-target tasks compared with the one-target task. For the one-arm, two-target reversal task, this effect emerged only in individuals with DS. These results indicate that individuals with DS use central processing for movement integration similarly to their TD and UID counterparts but cannot exploit peripheral-level integration to enhance integration in one-arm reversal tasks.