Dual-task interference as an indicator of on-line programming in simple movement sequences.

Ketelaars, Marion A. C.; Khan, Michael A.; Franks, Ian M.

doi:10.1037/0096-1523.25.5.1302

Cited by 17 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This allowed us to indirectly infer a RT difference between the unidirectional and reversal movements. As expected (Ketelaars et al 1997(Ketelaars et al , 1999Lajoie and Franks 1997), the ensemble EMG profile of the reversal condition (ACT-R; Fig. 4, gray trace) was delayed relative to unidirectional condition (ACT-Na; Fig.…”

Section: Rt Triggered Reactions and Modulation Of The Longlatency Rmentioning

confidence: 69%

“…One method that has been shown to increase RT (in a nonperturbation task) is to increase the movement accuracy (e.g., Fitts and Peterson 1964;Lajoie and Franks 1997;Sidaway 1991) or number of movement components (e.g., Henry and Rogers 1960;Ketelaars et al 1997Ketelaars et al , 1999Lajoie and Franks 1997). Previous perturbation studies, particularly those that have provided evidence of short-latency voluntary RTs, have typically used simple untargeted active responses following a perturbation (e.g., Crago et al 1976;Day et al 1983;Evarts and Vaughn 1978;Hammond 1956;MacKinnon et al 2000;Manning et al 2012;Rothwell et al 1980).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Voluntary reaction time and long-latency reflex modulation

Forgaard

Franks

Maslovat

et al. 2015

Journal of Neurophysiology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Forgaard CJ, Franks IM, Maslovat D, Chin L, Chua R. Voluntary reaction time and long-latency reflex modulation. J Neurophysiol 114: 3386 -3399, 2015. First published November 4, 2015 doi:10.1152/jn.00648.2015.-Stretching a muscle of the upper limb elicits short (M1) and long-latency (M2) reflexes. When the participant is instructed to actively compensate for a perturbation, M1 is usually unaffected and M2 increases in size and is followed by the voluntary response. It remains unclear if the observed increase in M2 is due to instruction-dependent gain modulation of the contributing reflex mechanism(s) or results from voluntary response superposition. The difficulty in delineating between these alternatives is due to the overlap between the voluntary response and the end of M2. The present study manipulated response accuracy and complexity to delay onset of the voluntary response and observed the corresponding influence on electromyographic activity during the M2 period. In all active conditions, M2 was larger compared with a passive condition where participants did not respond to the perturbation; moreover, these changes in M2 began early in the appearance of the response (ϳ50 ms), too early to be accounted for by voluntary overlap. Voluntary response latency influenced the latter portion of M2, with the largest activity seen when accuracy of limb position was not specified. However, when participants aimed for targets of different sizes or performed movements of various complexities, reaction time differences did not influence M2 period activity, suggesting voluntary activity was sufficiently delayed. Collectively, our results show that while a perturbation applied to the upper limbs can trigger a voluntary response at short latency (Ͻ100 ms), instruction-dependent reflex gain modulation remains an important contributor to EMG changes during the M2 period. long-latency reflex; M2; StartReact effect; superposition; reaction time FAST PERTURBATIONS APPLIED to the upper limbs can elicit stereotypical, electromyographic (EMG) responses in the stretched muscle. The first response (M1) occurs at short latency (ϳ25-50 ms) and reflects input from a spinal reflex pathway (Liddell and Sherrington 1924). This is followed by a longer latency (ϳ50

show abstract

Section: Rt Triggered Reactions and Modulation Of The Longlatency Rmentioning

confidence: 69%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Voluntary reaction time and long-latency reflex modulation

Forgaard

Franks

Maslovat

et al. 2015

Journal of Neurophysiology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…THE QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2006, 59 (3) the second element online (Ketelaars et al, 1999). Since the pattern of muscle activity was more complex for the two-than for the single-element responses, simple RT increased as a function of number of elements.…”

Section: Response Programmingmentioning

confidence: 95%

Programming strategies for rapid aiming movements under simple and choice reaction time conditions

Khan

Lawrence

Buckolz

et al. 2006

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Increases in reaction time (RT) as a function of response complexity have been shown to differ between simple and choice RT tasks. Of interest in the present study was whether the influence of response complexity on RT depends on the extent to which movements are programmed in advance of movement initiation versus during execution (i.e., online). The task consisted of manual aiming movements to one or two targets (one- vs. two-element responses) under simple and choice RT conditions. The probe RT technique was employed to assess attention demands during RT and movement execution. Simple RT was greater for the two- than for the single-target responses but choice RT was not influenced by the number of elements. In both RT tasks, reaction times to the probe increased as a function of number of elements when the probe occurred during movement execution. The presence of the probe also caused an increase in aiming errors in the simple but not choice RT task. These findings indicated that online programming was occurring in both RT tasks. In the simple RT task, increased executive control mediated the integration between response elements through the utilization of visual feedback to facilitate the implementation of the second element.

show abstract

“…To this aim, another organisational principle that can play a role on the control of movement accuracy is the relationship between the load and central demands incurred by the CNS to perform rapid aiming movements (e.g., Ketelaars et al, 1999;Khan et al, 2006). In other words, from our results, we investigated whether neural effort for movement control is an important factor that influences how CNS arrives at kinematics and associated muscle activation patterns when mechanical constraints are altered (Dounskaia and Goble, 2011;Kistemaker et al, 2010).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%