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

Abstract

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.

The integration of sequential aiming movements: Switching hand and direction at the first target

“…Since target conditions were administered in blocks of trials in the present study, this finding is consistent with past research in which participants knew the number of targets in advance of stimulus presentation (Khan et al, 2006;2007;Klapp, 1995;2003). Also, reaction time increased as a function of the number of targets regardless of whether both segments were performed with the same or different hands and whether the second segment was in the same or opposite direction to the first.…”

“…This finding suggested that interference arising from the integration between segments occurs at a central Running Head: movement integration and the OTA level. In contrast to movements in which the second segment is in the same direction as the first, the one target movement time advantage does not emerge when the second movement involves a reversal in direction (Adam et al, 2000;Ketelaars, Garry, & Franks, 1997;Khan et al, 2006Khan et al, , 2007. This is because the antagonist activity of the first movement in a reversal sequence acts to decelerate the first segment and accelerate the second segment in the opposite direction.…”

“…For reversal movements, the one target movement time advantage either does not emerge (e.g., when movements involve tapping target areas) (Adam et al, 2000), or a two-target movement time advantage arises where movement times to the first target are shorter for two compared to single segment responses (e.g., when movements involve sliding in a single dimension between target areas) (Khan, Lawrence, Buckolz, & Franks, 2006;Khan, Mourton, Buckolz, & Franks, 2007).…”

The effect of distance on reaction time in aiming movements

“…Christina 1992;Fischman 1984;Klapp & Erwin 1976;Rosenbaum & Patashnik 1980;Quinn et al 1980;Klapp 1996;Khan et al 2006).…”

“…The basic finding of longer RT with increased movement complexity has been replicated by a large number of authors (e.g. Christina 1992;Fischman 1984;Klapp & Erwin 1976;Rosenbaum & Patashnik 1980;Sidaway, Sekiya & Fairbrother 1995;Quinn et al 1980;Klapp 1996;Khan et al 2006) although there is some debate over the precise factors that define movement complexity. Sidaway, Sekiya & Fairbrother (1995) and Lajoie & Franks (1997) found that RT increased when the size of a second target decreased in a serial aiming response (where two targets are contacted in a fixed order).…”