Posture based motor planning in a sequential grasping task

Movement planning in sequential tasks is revealed by grasping postures. We explored aspects of planning a sequential drawer opening and object manipulation task with regard to arm and torso postures. We conducted a detailed kinematic analysis of joint postures at the wrist, elbow, and shoulder for a one-grasp and a two-grasp sequence of movement. The second of the two-grasp sequence was constrained (uncomfortable). We predicted that planning for the second grasp in a two-grasp sequence would influence arm, torso, and whole-body postures at the first grasp. Participants prepared for the second grasp by adjusting the posture of the elbow and shoulder and the distance they stepped to the drawer. The joint postures at the elbow and shoulder changed in the direction of the intended object grasp. These findings show that anticipatory adjustments are revealed at postures other than the end-effector and lend insight into the mechanisms of sequential movement planning.     

Synchronization in repetitive smooth movement requires perceptible events

Accurate timing performance during auditory–motor synchronization has been well documented for finger tapping tasks. It is believed that information pertaining to an event in movement production aids in detecting and correcting for errors between movement cycle completion and the metronome tone. Tasks with minimal event-related information exhibit more variable synchronization and less rapid error correction. Recent work from our laboratory has indicated that a task purportedly lacking an event structure (circle drawing) did not exhibit accurate synchronization or error correction (Studenka & Zelaznik, in press). In the present paper we report on two experiments examining synchronization in tapping and circle drawing tasks. In Experiment 1, error correction processes of an event-timed tapping timing task and an emergently timed circle drawing timing task were examined. Rapid and complete error correction was seen for the tapping, but not for the circle drawing task. In Experiment 2, a perceptual event was added to delineate a cycle in circle drawing, and the perceptual event of table contact was removed from the tapping task. The inclusion of an event produced a marked improvement in synchronization error correction for circle drawing, and the removal of tactile feedback (taking away an event) slightly reduced the error correction response of tapping. Furthermore, the task kinematics of circle drawing remained smooth providing evidence that event structure can be kinematic or perceptual in nature. Thus, synchronization and error correction, characteristic of event timing (Ivry, Spencer, Zelaznik, & Diedrichsen, 2002; Repp, 2005), depends upon the presence of a distinguishable source of sensory information at the timing goal.     

Extending end-state comfort effect: do we consider the beginning state comfort of another?

Sharing a drink or passing a tool to another person is frequently done in our daily lives. However, a second thought is rarely given about how the object should be handed; instead we pay attention to other factors (e.g., the company). This interaction (handing a tool to someone) is interesting, since it may give insight to how motor intentions are predicted. Research has demonstrated that individuals exhibit an end-state comfort effect when manipulating objects, and it is of interest to determine how this is applied to a joint-action paradigm. The purpose of this experiment was to determine if participants would anticipate the confederate's postural requirements and pass tools in a manner that allowed the confederate to have beginning state comfort and thus facilitate the motion sequence as a whole. That is, would the participant incur the cost of the movement by adopting an awkward posture to facilitate the use of the tool by the confederate? The results demonstrated that participants allowed the confederate to adopt a comfortable beginning state comfort on 100% of the trials for all the tools. However, the participants did not sacrifice end-state comfort, demonstrating that the participants were able to plan ahead to both maximize their own end-state comfort and the beginning state comfort of the confederate.     

Crossing the arms confuses the clocks: Sensory feedback and the bimanual advantage

The bimanual advantage refers to the finding that tapping with two fingers on opposite hands exhibits reduced timing variability, as compared with tapping with only one finger. Two leading theories propose that the bimanual advantage results from the addition of either sensory (i.e., enhanced feedback) or cognitive (i.e., multiple timekeeper) processes involved in timing. Given that crossing the arms impairs perception of tactile stimuli and modulates cortical activation following tactile stimulation, we investigated the role of crossing the arms in the bimanual advantage. Participants tapped unimanually or bimanually with their arms crossed or uncrossed on a tabletop or in the air. With arms crossed, we expected increased interval timing variance. Similarly, for air tapping, we expected reduced bimanual advantage, due to reduced sensory feedback. A significant bimanual advantage was observed for the uncrossed, but not the crossed posture in tabletop tapping. Furthermore, removing tactile feedback from taps eliminated the bimanual advantage for both postures. Together, these findings suggest that crossing the arms likely impairs integration of internal (i.e., effector-specific) and external (i.e., environment-specific) information and that this multisensory integration is crucial to reducing timing variability during repetitive coordinated bimanual tasks.     

The influence of dominant versus non-dominant hand on event and emergent motor timing

It has been hypothesized that timing in tapping utilizes event timing; a clock-like process, whereas timing in circle drawing is emergent. Three experiments examined timing in tapping and circle drawing by the dominant and non-dominant hand. Participants were right-hand dominant college aged males and females. The relationship between variance and the square of the timed interval (the Weber fraction), thought to capture clock-like timekeeping processes, was compared. Furthermore, timing variance was decomposed into a clock and a motor component. The slopes for timing were different for dominant hand tapping and circle drawing, but equal for non-dominant and dominant hand tapping. Negative lag one covariance, consistent with motor implementation variability, was found for non-dominant but not for dominant hand circle drawing (Experiment 1). Practice did not influence this relation (Experiment 2). A significant correlation for clock variability was found between non-dominant hand circle drawing and tapping (Experiment 3). Collectively, these findings indicate that event timing is shareable across hands while emergent timing is specific to an effector. Emergent timing does not appear to be obligatory for the non-dominant hand in circle drawing. We suggest that the use of emergent timing might depend upon the extensive practice experienced by a person's dominant hand.     

Visual information about past,current and future properties of irregular target paths in isometric force tracking

Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics - In visual-motor tracking, information about past, current, and future properties of a target path can be available but, because they are typically...     

Circle drawing does not exhibit auditory-motor synchronization

Differences in timing control processes between tapping and circle drawing have been extensively documented during continuation timing. Differences between event and emergent control processes have also been documented for synchronization timing using emergent tasks that have minimal event-related information. However, it is not known whether the original circle-drawing task also behaves differently than tapping during synchronization. In this experiment, 10 participants performed a table-tapping and a continuous circle-drawing task to an auditory metronome. Synchronization performance was assessed via the value and variability of asynchronies. Synchronization was substantially more difficult in circle drawing than in tapping. Participants drawing timed circles exhibited drift in synchronization error and did not maintain a consistent phase relationship with the metronome. An analysis of temporal anchoring revealed that timing to the timing target was not more accurate than timing to other locations on the circle trajectory. The authors conclude that participants were not able to synchronize movement with metronome tones in the circle-drawing task despite other findings that cyclical tasks do exhibit auditory motor synchronization, because the circle-drawing task is unique and absent of event and cycle position information.     

The distinction between tapping and circle drawing with and without tactile feedback: an examination of the sources of timing variance

An internal clock-like process has been implicated in the control of rhythmic movements performed for short (250-2,000 ms) time scales. However, in the past decade, it has been claimed that a clock-like central timing mechanism is not required for smooth cyclical movements. The distinguishing characteristic delineating clock-like (event) from non-clock-like (emergent) timing is thought to be the kinematic differences between tapping (discrete-like) and circle drawing (smooth). In the archetypal event-timed task (tapping), presence of perceptual events is confounded with the discrete kinematics of movement (table contact). Recently, it has been suggested that discrete perceptual events help participants synchronize with a metronome. However, whether discrete tactile events directly elicit event timing has yet to be determined. In the present study, we examined whether a tactile event inserted into the circle drawing timing task could elicit event timing in a self-paced (continuation) timing task. For a majority of participants, inserting an event into the circle drawing task elicited timing behaviour consistent with the idea that an internal timekeeper was employed (a correlation of circle drawing with tapping). Additionally, some participants exhibited characteristics of event timing in the typically emergently timed circle drawing task. We conclude that the use of event timing can be influenced by the insertion of perceptual events, and it also exhibits persistence over time and over tasks within certain individuals.