Response preparation with static versus moving hands

This research tested the response inhibition account of the hand-advantage found in the finger pre-cuing task. According to this account, the advantage of preparing two fingers on one hand (represented in one hemisphere) as opposed to preparing two fingers on two hands (represented in two hemispheres) is due, in part, to a response inhibition process that operates more efficiently within than between hemispheres. In this view, supplying extra activation to both hemispheres by moving the hands should decrease the within-hemisphere inhibition advantage. Twelve participants performed the finger pre-cuing task with static and moving hands. As predicted by the response inhibition account, the hand-advantage, present with the hands at rest, decreased with the hands moving.     

The spatial proximity hypothesis of the hand advantage in spatial precuing tasks : A short note concerning discrepant criterion effects

Within the context of the spatial precuing paradigm a consistent finding is that with the hands placed adjacently precuing of two fingers on the same hand results in faster discrete finger responses than precuing of two fingers on different hands. This phenomenon is known as the ‘hand advantage’. Both Miller (1982) and Reeve and Proctor (1984) considered, and rejected, the ‘spatial proximity’ hypothesis as a possible perceptual explanation of the hand advantage. However, data reported by Miller (1982) and Reeve and Proctor (1984) to discount the spatial proximity hypothesis showed a puzzling inconsistency which weakened the strength of the rejection. In this article I address this inconsistency theoretically and experimentally. I conclude that its origin lies in differential operationalizations of the concept ‘preparation effect’. This conclusion justifies rejection of the spatial proximity hypothesis.     

The influence of response grouping on free-choice decision making in a response selection task

Previous research has demonstrated an advantage for the preparation of fingers on one hand over the preparation of fingers on two hands, and for the preparation of homologous fingers over that of non-homologous fingers. In the present study, we extended the precuing effects observed with finger responses to response selection under free-choice conditions. Participants were required to choose from a range of possible responses following the presentation of a precue that indicated which response to prepare (go-to precue) or prevent (no-go-to precue). In Experiment 1 the choice was between homologous and non-homologous finger responses on the hand opposite to the precue while in Experiment 2 the choice was between finger responses on the same or different hand to the precue. In the go-to precue condition, the frequency of homologous finger choices was more frequent than non-homologous finger responses. Similarly, participants chose finger responses on the same hand as the precue regardless of whether they were instructed to prepare or prevent the precued response. The hand effect bias was stronger than the finger effect bias. These findings are consistent with the Grouping Model (Adam, Hommel, & Umilta, 2003).     

The acquisition of task-specific productions and modifications of declarative representations in spatial-precuing tasks

The stimulus-response translation stage of human information processing plays a mediating role of relating stimuli to assigned responses. The translation stage has been implicated as the locus of a pattern of differential precuing benefits obtained in spatial-choice tasks (Proctor & Reeve, 1986; Reeve & Proctor, 1985): When pairs of finger responses from the middle and index fingers of each hand are precued, the two leftmost and two rightmost responses show the greatest benefit. This pattern of differential benefits, which occurs regardless of whether the hand placement is adjacent or overlapped, has been attributed to spatially coded representations of the stimulus and response sets in the translation stage. Experiment 1 evaluated whether the mediating role of the translation stage changes with practice. All precued pairs of responses showed equivalent benefits in the last of three sessions. This result indicates that the spatial representations used initially to translate between stimuli and responses have been altered to be more efficient or have been replaced by productions that directly specify fingers. Experiment 2 used a fourth session in which subjects were transferred from the overlapped hand placement to the adjacent placement, or vice versa. For subjects in the former condition, the pattern of differential precuing benefits reappeared in the transfer session. This lack of transfer is consistent with the hypothesis that task-specific productions develop with practice that directly relate stimuli to fingers. For subjects who practiced with the adjacent placement and switched to the overlapped placement, only a nonsignificant tendency existed for the pattern of differential precuing benefits to reappear. This failure of the pattern to reappear could indicate that spatial representations continue to be used to translate between stimuli and responses. Alternatively, as occurs with the overlapped placement, task-specific productions could be acquired that relate stimuli to fingers. If so, the failure of the pattern of differential precuing benefits to reappear would reflect a modification in the representations that are used for translation in the transfer session. Specifically, if subjects were coding the stimulus and response sets on the basis of the distinction between the two hands, as well as the spatial distinction, the differential benefits would be minimized because hand coding should benefit different responses from those benefitted by spatial coding. These alternative explanations were evaluated in Experiment 3 by having subjects who practiced with the adjacent placement switch to a placement in which the hands were crossed completely.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)     

Perceptual and motor factors in the imitation of simple temporal patterns

Summary This study investigated the relative importance of perceptual and motor factors in the imitation of simple temporal patterns. Previous research in which subjects tap out interval sequences using one finger has suggested that perceptual factors play an important role in response timing. Studies of bimanual tapping, in contrast, stress the importance of motor interactions between the two hands. In this experiment we compared the ability of subjects to tap out two-interval sequences using one finger, two fingers on one hand, and two fingers on opposite hands. The results showed almost identical performance under the three response conditions. It is suggested that the perceptual relations between intervals in a pattern were the main determinant of performance in this experiment.     

A deficit in older adults' effortful selection of cued responses

J. J. Adam et al. (1998) provided evidence for an "age-related deficit in preparing 2 fingers on 2 hands, but not on 1 hand" (p. 870). Instead of having an anatomical basis, the deficit could result from the effortful processing required for individuals to select cued subsets of responses that do not coincide with left and right subgroups. The deficit also could involve either the ultimate benefit that can be attained or the time required to attain that benefit. The authors report 3 experiments (Ns = 40, 48, and 32 participants, respectively) in which they tested those distinctions by using an overlapped hand placement (participants alternated the index and middle fingers of the hands), a normal hand placement, and longer precuing intervals than were used in previous studies. The older adults were able to achieve the full precuing benefit shown by younger adults but required longer to achieve the maximal benefit for most pairs of responses. The deficit did not depend on whether the responses were from different hands, suggesting that it lies primarily in the effortful processing required for those subsets of cued responses that are not selected easily.     

Integration of hand and finger location in external spatial coordinates for tactile localization

Tactile stimulus location is automatically transformed from somatotopic into external spatial coordinates, rendering information about the location of touch in three-dimensional space. This process is referred to as tactile remapping. Whereas remapping seems to occur automatically for the hands and feet, the fingers may constitute an exception in that some studies have implied purely somatotopic coding of touch to the fingers. When participants judge the order of two tactile stimuli, they often err when the stimulated body parts (usually the two hands) are crossed, presumably because somatotopic and external coordinates are in conflict in crossed postures. Using this task, we investigated, first, whether the fingers are unlike other limbs with regard to spatial coding, by testing whether crossing effects, indicative of external coding, were observable when stimulating two fingers, either on the same or on different hands. Second, we investigated the interaction of hand and finger posture in tactile localization of finger stimuli. Crossing effects emerged when fingers and hands were crossed, suggesting external coding for all body parts. Crossing effects were larger when both hand and finger were located in the hemifield opposite to their body side, and smaller when only hand or finger lay in the opposite hemifield. We suggest that tactile location is estimated by integrating the external location of all relevant body parts, here of a finger and its belonging hand, and that such integrative coding may represent a general principle for body part processing as well as for tool use.     

Finger inter-dependence: linking the kinetic and kinematic variables

We studied the dependence between voluntary motion of a finger and pressing forces produced by the tips of other fingers of the hand. Participants moved one of the fingers (task finger) of the right hand trying to follow a cyclic, ramp-like flexion-extension template at different frequencies. The other fingers (slave fingers) were restricted from moving; their flexion forces were recorded and analyzed. Index finger motion caused the smallest force production by the slave fingers. Larger forces were produced by the neighbors of the task finger; these forces showed strong modulation over the range of motion of the task finger. The enslaved forces were higher during the flexion phase of the movement cycle as compared to the extension phase. The index of enslaving expressed in N/rad was higher when the task finger moved through the more flexed postures. The dependence of enslaving on both range and direction of task finger motion poses problems for methods of analysis of finger coordination based on an assumption of universal matrices of finger interdependence.     

Expanding the tactual field of view

Can tactual information be acquired simultaneously by several different fingers? Blind and sighted Ss were asked to scan vertical displays of braille (consisting of either one or two dots) with the index and middle fingers on each hand-using one, two, or four fingers at the same time. Stimuli were recognized most rapidly when the displays were scanned by two fingers on different hands and least rapidly when two fingers on the same hand were used; performance was similar with one finger and with four fingers. The results indicated some parallel perceptual processing of the inputs to the two hands and mutual interference in processing inputs from fingers on the same hand.     

On the advance preparation of discrete finger responses

Most studies that examined the precuing of motor responses have been interpreted as indicating that response specification is a variable-order process. An apparent exception to this conclusion was obtained by Miller (1982) for the preparation of discrete finger responses. Precuing was beneficial only when the precued responses were on the same hand, suggesting that response specification occurs in a fixed order, with hand specified before other aspects of the response. Three experiments examined this discrepant finding for discrete finger responses. Experiment 1 demonstrated that with sufficient time (3 s), all combinations of responses can be equally well prepared. Experiments 2 and 3 showed that the precuing advantage for same-hand responses at shorter precuing intervals is due to strategic and decision factors, not to an ability to prepare these responses more efficiently. Preparation of finger responses, thus, also appears to be variable. This conclusion poses problems for Miller's extension of the precuing procedure to the evaluation of discrete versus continuous models of information processing.     

Tactile Enumeration and Embodied Numerosity Among the Deaf

Representations of the fingers are embodied in our cognition and influence performance in enumeration tasks. Among deaf signers, the fingers also serve as a tool for communication in sign language. Previous studies in normal hearing (NH) participants showed effects of embodiment (i.e., embodied numerosity) on tactile enumeration using the fingers of one hand. In this research, we examined the influence of extensive visuo-manual use on tactile enumeration among the deaf. We carried out four enumeration task experiments, using 1–5 stimuli, on a profoundly deaf group (n = 16) and a matching NH group (n = 15): (a) tactile enumeration using one hand, (b) tactile enumeration using two hands, (c) visual enumeration of finger signs, and (d) visual enumeration of dots. In the tactile tasks, we found salient embodied effects in the deaf group compared to the NH group. In the visual enumeration of finger signs task, we controlled the meanings of the stimuli presentation type (e.g., finger-counting habit, fingerspelled letters, both or neither). Interestingly, when comparing fingerspelled letters to neutrals (i.e., not letters or numerical finger-counting signs), an inhibition pattern was observed among the deaf. The findings uncover the influence of rich visuo-manual experiences and language on embodied representations. In addition, we propose that these influences can partially account for the lag in mathematical competencies in the deaf compared to NH peers. Lastly, we further discuss how our findings support a contemporary model for mental numerical representations and finger-counting habits.     

Preparing fingers within and between hands: Examining the maximal preparation benefit in older age

Previous research has demonstrated an age-related deficit in the preparation of finger responses. A key question is whether the age-related deficit reflects differences in speed of preparation or differences in the maximal preparation benefit that can be attained given sufficiently long preparation intervals. The present study examined this issue by asking a group of younger and older adults to perform the finger-cueing task with four, relatively long, preparation intervals that varied randomly across trials. Reaction time results demonstrated that older adults were deficient in preparing two fingers on two hands at the two shortest preparation intervals, but not at the two longest ones. This outcome suggests that, with randomised preparation intervals, older adults require more time than younger adults to achieve the maximal level of between-hands preparation.     

The contribution of tactile reafference to temporal regularity during bimanual finger tapping

In a repetitive tapping task, the within-hand variability of intertap intervals is reduced when participants tap with both hands, as opposed to single-handed tapping. This bimanual advantage can be attributed to timer variance (according to the Wing-Kristofferson model). Separate timers have been proposed for each hand whose outputs are then averaged (Helmuth & Ivry, 1996, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 278-293). Alternatively, timing might be based on sensory reafference and the bimanual advantage due to the enhancement of sensory reafferences. This alternative hypothesis was tested in three experiments. In the first experiment, we replicated the bimanual advantage in tapping with two fingers of the same hand compared with single finger tapping. In the second experiment, we demonstrated that the bimanual advantage decreased when tactile reafferences from left-hand taps were omitted (by contact-free tapping). In the third experiment, participants tapped bimanually with the index fingers of both hands firmly mechanically coupled. The bimanual advantage was replicated for this condition. Results are consistent with the assumption that the bimanual advantage is due to the sensory reafferences of the second hand. We suggest that our results are best explained by a reformulation of the Wing-Kristofferson model, in which the timer provides action goals in terms of sensory reafferences.     

Influence of practice on response-selection and response-implementation processes involved in the response-interference effect

In a choice reaction-time task, the response-interference effect is an increase in reaction times when the two possible responses are from the same hand compared to when the two possible responses are from different hands [Psychonomic Science 2 (1965) 55-56; Human Motor Control, Academic Press, San Diego, CA, 1991]. Although the influence of practice on other reaction-time effects (i.e., the complexity effect and precuing) has been examined, research evaluating the influence of practice on the response-interference effect is limited. Therefore, two experiments were conducted to determine the influence of practice on the response-interference effect. In Experiment 1, a bilateral transfer task was used to assess the influence of practice on the response-selection processes associated with the response-interference effect. The practice results indicated decreased reaction times, but did not influence the response-interference effect. In Experiment 2, a priming task was used to assess the influence of practice on response-implementation processes associated with the response-interference effect. The reaction time results indicated a change in the response-interference effect. The results of these two experiments suggest that with only two fingers on response keys, practice alters the mechanical constraints affecting the response-implementation processes and thereby decreases the response-interference effect.     

Characteristics of finger force production during one- and two-hand tasks

Relations among finger forces were studied during one-hand and two-hand isometric maximal force production tasks in right- and left-handers. We particularly focused on the phenomena of force deficit during one-hand multi-finger tasks and of bilateral force deficit during two-hand tasks. Ten healthy subjects (five of them left-handed) performed maximal voluntary force production tasks with different finger combinations involving fingers of one of the hands or of both hands together. In one-hand tasks, finger enslaving (forces produced by fingers that were not instructed to produce force) was larger in the dominant hand, while force deficit (drop in individual finger peak force during multi-finger tasks) showed no differences between the hands. An additional drop in finger forces was seen in two-hand tests (bilateral deficit). The magnitude of the bilateral deficit for a hand was larger for tasks involving fewer fingers within the hand and more fingers in the other hand, with a ceiling effect. Smaller bilateral deficit was seen in tasks involving symmetrical finger combinations. In two-hand tasks that could potentially lead to the generation of large total moments in the frontal plane, the hand that was expected to generate larger moments showed larger bilateral deficit, so that the magnitude of the total moment was reduced. These observations suggest that force deficit within a hand and bilateral deficit have different origins but their effects are combined at a certain level of the multi-finger control hierarchy. Bilateral deficit may display task dependence reflecting, in particular, the principle of minimization of secondary moments. A double-representation, mirror-image hypothesis is suggested to provide a neurophysiological basis for the observed patterns of bilateral deficit.     

Determinants of Two-Choice Reaction-Time Patterns for Same-Hand and Different-Hand Finger Pairings

Several studies of two-choice reaction times have compared situations in which the alternative responses are fingers from one hand (the same-hand pairing) or one finger from each hand (the different-hand pairing). Two patterns of results have been obtained: (a) equivalent reaction times for the same-hand and different-hand pairings and (b) faster reaction times for the different-hand pairing. Previously, these outcomes have been attributed to the adoption of different response-preparation strategies when response pairs are constant (low response-pair uncertainty) versus when they are varied from trial to trial (high response-pair uncertainty). However, response-pair uncertainty has been confounded with whether only the two relevant fingers were placed on response keys or whether more than two fingers were. Experiment 1 of the present study demonstrated that finger placement, rather than response-pair uncertainty, determines which reaction-time pattern is obtained. Experiments 2 and 3 investigated the nature of the finger-placement effect by placing the fingers that were irrelevant for the task on response keys or on immovable blocks. The experiments indicated that the crucial factor is the number of fingers on active response keys, with the type of preparation being different when only two fingers are on keys rather than when more than two fingers are.     

Determinants of two-choice reaction-time patterns for same-hand and different-hand finger pairings

Several studies of two-choice reaction times have compared situations in which the alternative responses are fingers from one hand (the same-hand pairing) or one finger from each hand (the different-hand pairing). Two patterns of results have been obtained: (a) equivalent reaction times for the same-hand and different-hand pairings and (b) faster reaction times for the different-hand pairing. Previously, these outcomes have been attributed to the adoption of different response-preparation strategies when response pairs are constant (low response-pair uncertainty) versus when they are varied from trial to trial (high response-pair uncertainty). However, response-pair uncertainty has been confounded with whether only the two relevant fingers were placed on response keys or whether more than two fingers were. Experiment 1 of the present study demonstrated that finger placement, rather than response-pair uncertainty, determines which reaction-time pattern is obtained. Experiments 2 and 3 investigated the nature of the finger-placement effect by placing the fingers that were irrelevant for the task on response keys or on immovable blocks. The experiments indicated that the crucial factor is the number of fingers on active response keys, with the type of preparation being different when only two fingers are on keys rather than when more than two fingers are.     

Similarity of tactual and visual picture recognition with limited field of view.

Subjects attempted to recognize simple line drawings of common objects using either touch or vision. In the touch condition, subjects explored raised line drawings using the distal pad of the index finger or the distal pads both of the index and of the middle fingers. In the visual condition, a computer-driven display was used to simulate tactual exploration. By moving an electronic pen over a digitizing tablet, the subject could explore a line drawing stored in memory; on the display screen a portion of the drawing appeared to move behind a stationary aperture, in concert with the movement of the pen. This aperture was varied in width, thus simulating the use of one or two fingers. In terms of average recognition accuracy and average response latency, recognition performance was virtually the same in the one-finger touch condition and the simulated one-finger vision condition. Visual recognition performance improved considerably when the visual field size was doubled (simulating two fingers), but tactual performance showed little improvement, suggesting that the effective tactual field of view for this task is approximately equal to one finger pad. This latter result agrees with other reports in the literature indicating that integration of two-dimensional pattern information extending over multiple fingers on the same hand is quite poor. The near equivalence of tactual picture perception and narrow-field vision suggests that the difficulties of tactual picture recognition must be largely due to the narrowness of the effective field of view.     

Nonselective motor-level changes associated with selective response inhibition: evidence from response force measurements

In the present study, we examined the effects of selective response inhibition on motor production using response force measures within a task that was based on that of Aron and Verbruggen (Psychological Science, 19, 1146–1153, 2008). In each trial, participants were signaled to respond bimanually with the two index fingers or the two middle fingers. After a short delay, a stop signal was sometimes presented, indicating that one of the two finger responses should be withheld. A given response was slowed when the response on the other hand was stopped, replicating a previously observed stopping interference effect. In addition, the given response was also made more forcefully when the response on the other hand was stopped, indicating that the requirement to stop one activated response has global motor-level consequences for other responses that are to be carried out normally.     

Perceptual processing of adjacent and nonadjacent tactile nontargets.

Previous research has shown that subjects appear unable to restrict processing to a single finger and ignore a stimulus presented to an adjacent finger. Furthermore, the evidence suggests that, at least for moving stimuli, an adjacent nontarget is fully processed to the level of incipient response activation. The present study replicated and expanded upon these original findings. The results of Experiment 1 showed that an equally large response-competition effect occurred when the nontarget was presented to adjacent and nonadjacent fingers (on the same hand). The results of Experiment 2 showed that the effects observed in Experiment 1 (and in previous studies) were also obtained with stationary stimuli. Although small, there was some indication in the results of Experiment 2 that interference may dissipate more rapidly with distance with stationary stimuli. An additional finding was that interference effects were observed in both experiments with temporal separations between the target and nontarget of up to 100 msec. In Experiment 3, target and nontarget stimuli were presented to opposite hands. Although reduced, interference was still evident with target and nontarget stimuli presented to opposite hands. Varying the physical distance between hands did not produce any change in the amount of interference. The results suggest that the focus of attention on the skin extends nearly undiminished across the fingers of one hand and is not dependent upon the physical distance between sites of stimulation.