Abstract

This study investigated the influence of cueing on the performance of untrained and trained complex motor responses. Healthy adults responded to a visual target by performing four sequential movements (complex response) or a single movement (simple response) of their middle finger. A visual cue preceded the target by an interval of 300, 1000, or 2000 ms. In Experiment 1, the complex and simple responses were not previously trained. During the testing session, the complex response pattern varied on a trial-by-trial basis following the indication provided by the visual cue. In Experiment 2, the complex response and the simple response were extensively trained beforehand. During the testing session, the trained complex response pattern was performed in all trials. The latency of the untrained and trained complex responses decreased from the short to the medium and long cue-target intervals. The latency of the complex response was longer than that of the simple response, except in the case of the trained responses and the long cue-target interval. These results suggest that the preparation of untrained complex responses cannot be completed in advance, this being possible, however, for trained complex responses when enough time is available. The duration of the 1st submovement, 1st pause and 2nd submovement of the untrained and the trained complex responses increased from the short to the long cue-target interval, suggesting that there is an increase of online programming of the response possibly related to the degree of certainty about the moment of target appearance.

Highlights

  • The latency and duration of a complex response is reduced when its exact pattern is previously indicated by a cue

  • Reaction time was longer for the complex response task than for the simple response task for the three CTI

  • For the simple response task, reaction times did not differ between the three CTI

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The latency and duration of a complex response is reduced when its exact pattern is previously indicated by a cue. Klapp [1] observed that the latency of unfamiliar four-unit key-press responses was longer than the latency of unfamiliar one-unit key-press responses when the response pattern was indicated by a cue well in advance, characterizing a simple reaction time task. These results and similar ones obtained in a subsequent study, in which syllable-articulation responses were evaluated [2], led him to propose that the programming process would involve the organization of the internal structure of the response, in the case of single-unit responses, or of the 1st unit (“chunk”) of the response, in the case of multiple-unit responses. The organization of the internal structure of the 1st unit of the response and the ordering of the response units would evolve and could even be completed before the triggering of the response, but the activation and scanning of the abstract time frame would only be possible after that

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call