Search research articles

Search research articles

Related Experiment Videos

Peripheral constraint versus on-line programming in rapid aimed sequential movements.

A L Smiley-Oyen¹, C J Worringham

¹Department of Health and Human Performance, Iowa State University, Ames 50011, USA. asmiley@iastate.edu

Acta Psychologica

|November 6, 2001

Summary

This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by

Same author

Age- and speed-related differences in harmonic ratios during walking.

Gait & posture·2011

Same author

Predictors of future falls in Parkinson disease.

Neurology·2010

Same author

Planning and control of sequential rapid aiming in adults with Parkinson's disease.

Journal of motor behavior·2007

Same author

Control of aperture closure during reach-to-grasp movements in Parkinson's disease.

Experimental brain research·2005

Same author

Motor learning processes in a movement-scaling task in olivopontocerebellar atrophy and Parkinson's disease.

Experimental brain research·2003

Same author

Proprioception and stimulus-response compatibility.

The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology·2000

ABOUT JoVE

Overview Leadership Blog JoVE Help Center

AUTHORS

Publishing Process Editorial Board Scope & Policies Peer Review FAQ Submit

LIBRARIANS

Testimonials Subscriptions Access Resources Library Advisory Board FAQ

RESEARCH

JoVE Journal Methods Collections JoVE Encyclopedia of Experiments Archive

EDUCATION

JoVE Core JoVE Business JoVE Science Education JoVE Lab Manual Faculty Resource Center Faculty Site

Terms & Conditions of Use

This study shows that rapid aiming sequence control depends on target complexity. Preprogramming works for simpler sequences, but complex ones involve continuous on-line adjustments without added time cost.

Area of Science:

Motor Control
Human Movement Science
Cognitive Psychology

Background:

Understanding rapid aiming sequences is crucial for motor control research.
Previous models suggested preprogramming or peripheral constraints govern movement control.

Purpose of the Study:

To investigate how programming and control of rapid aiming sequences change with complexity.
To determine if preprogramming/peripheral constraint models adequately explain control of complex sequences.
To identify when on-line programming occurs during rapid aiming.

Main Methods:

Three experiments manipulated sequence complexity by varying the number of targets (1-11).
Measured initiation/execution timing, probe reaction time (RT), and movement kinematics.

Related Experiment Videos

Analyzed performance in blocked (consistent length) and random (variable length) execution fashions.

Main Results:

Preprogramming/peripheral constraint model supported for up to 7 targets in blocked sequences.
In random sequences, preprogramming did not increase with complexity; on-line programming occurred without time cost.
Later targets constrained earlier movements, and programming was influenced by spatial trajectory (subtended angle) and average velocity.

Conclusions:

A continuous processing model, where programming and execution co-occur, best explains rapid aiming.
On-line programming can occur without a time penalty, especially in complex or random sequences.
Average velocity decreases with target number, controlling movement segment variability.