Abstract
When performing a rapid manual interception, targets moving under constant motion are often intercepted with greater accuracy when compared to targets moving under accelerated motion. Usually, accelerated targets are timed too late and decelerating ones too early. The present experiment sought to investigate whether these differences in performance when intercepting targets moving under constant and accelerated motions change after a short period of practice. The task involved striking targets that moved along a straight track by moving forward a manipulandum that moved along a slide perpendicular to the target’s motion. Participants were allocated to one of the three experimental groups, defined according to the type of motion of the moving targets: constant speed, constant acceleration, and constant deceleration. Results showed that after some practice participants were able to intercept (positive and negative) accelerating moving targets as accurately as constant speed targets. These results suggest that people might be able to learn how to intercept accelerating targets, corroborating the results of some recent studies.
Highlights
People’s responses to moving objects are of two basic types: responses in which the object is contacted—called interceptive responses or interceptive actions (Zago et al 2009, for a recent review)—and those in which contact is avoided
A number of studies have investigated how people time the manual interception of accelerating targets and reported results consistent with the idea that acceleration information is not used (e.g., Benguigui et al 2003; Lee et al 1983; Michaels et al 2001; Port et al 1997)
A series of studies over the last two decades have demonstrated that people can, with practice, learn to utilize acceleration information to control the timing of interceptions by acquiring knowledge about regularities in acceleration over repeated trials and using that knowledge in the timing of subsequent attempts (Zago et al 2009)
Summary
People’s responses to moving objects are of two basic types: responses in which the object is contacted—called interceptive responses or interceptive actions (Zago et al 2009, for a recent review)—and those in which contact is avoided. Performance in constant speed catch trials demonstrated that compensation was (at least in large part) anticipatory rather than an acquired feedback-based reaction to specific stimulus conditions This finding does not demonstrate the acquisition of an internal model of the magnitude of the acceleration, it does demonstrate a role for acquired knowledge in controlling the timing of interceptions involved accelerations of a non-gravitational magnitude. Similar findings were reported by La Scaleia et al (2014) over a much wider range of conditions and using both interceptive and non-interceptive responses In both these studies, the targets accelerated down an incline (so speed increased) and the incline itself was visible throughout, as was the target’s starting location. The results add to our understanding of the range of conditions in which people can learn to take accelerations into account when timing interceptive actions
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
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
