Memory Drum Theory Research Articles

Using Video Game Telemetry Data to Research Motor Chunking, Action Latencies, and Complex Cognitive-Motor Skill Learning.

Many theories of complex cognitive-motor skill learning are built on the notion that basic cognitive processes group actions into easy-to-perform sequences. The present work examines predictions derived from laboratory-based studies of motor chunking and motor preparation using data collected from the real-time strategy video game StarCraft 2. We examined 996,163 action sequences in the telemetry data of 3,317 players across seven levels of skill. As predicted, the latency to the first action (thought to be the beginning of a chunked sequence) is delayed relative to the other actions in the group. Other predictions, inspired by the memory drum theory of Henry and Rogers, received only weak support.

Memory Drum Theory's C Movement

Franklin Henry's “memory drum” theory of neuromotor reaction (Henry & Rogers, 1960) was one of the most influential studies of the response programming stage of information processing. The paper is the most-cited study ever published in the Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. However, few people know there is a noteworthy error in the paper, namely in the description of the C movement, the most complicated of the three responses studied. Henry himself was unaware of the error for nearly 20 years after the paper's publication. The purpose of our paper is to accord the factual record its due respect by revealing the history about the error and its correction. The data are in the form of the original 1960 paper which describes the C movement, a paper by Howell (1953), and personal letters from Henry dating from 1979, when the error was first discovered, and continuing through 1986. In one letter, Henry attributed the error to a mild and specific form of aphasia, manifested by word reversals, from which he suffered throughout his scholarly life. Such a revelation makes the career of this remarkable scholar even more remarkable.

Memory Drum Theory's C Movement: Revelations From Franklin Henry

Memory Drum Theory's C Movement: Revelations From Franklin Henry

Premotor reaction time (PMT) of the reversal elbow extension—flexion as a function of response complexity

The purpose of the present study is to examine the qualitative aspects of the memory drum theory by using the simple reaction time (SRT) as a function of response complexity by means of elbow extension (unidirectional response; U-response) and extension-flexion (reversal response; R-response), and two additional variables; small (30°) and large (60°) distance. Some striking features of U-response compared to R-response were revealed; (1) premotor reaction times (PMTs) of the R-response were always longer than those of the U-response, (2) the duration of the initial agonist burst was longer not only for the large distance response but also for the R-response, (3) EMG onsets of the antagonist in the R-response and the large distance response were always later than those of the U-response and the small distance response. Those findings reported here allow us to conclude that there are two possibilities for the reason why changes occur in SRT between the simple and the complex response. One possibility is that there are different durations of the initial agonist burst and the second is that there are differences of EMG onset of the antagonist muscle.

運動開始前の前腕位及び手関節角度の違いが肘屈曲動作の反応時間に及ぼす影響

The present study was designed to test whether varying limb positions prior to a voluntary elbow flexion influenced the simple EMG-RTs. Eight students were examined under the conditions of six limb positions (3 × 2); three different wrist positions (45 deg. extension; WE, 45 deg. flexion; WE and neutral; N) and two different forearm positions (supination position; S and pronation position; P). Under the those six conditions, EMG-RTs and motor evoked potentials were recorded. Main results may be summarized as follows: 1) In N position, EMG-RT of S was shorter than that of P position. In P position, different EMG-RTs were observed among three different wrist positions. In S position, however, EMG-RT differences were not observed. 2) In all conditions, variabilities of the velocity and the accuracy of the movement were not found to be related to changes in EMG-RTs. 3) In N position, amplitudes of MEP in S were larger than those in P. However, variabilities of the amplitudes and the latencies of MEPs were not found to be related to changes in EMG-RTs in different wrist positions. From those results obtained, it is suggested that the change of EMG-RTs with varying forearm positions is induced dependent on two factors; one is the different number of synergic muscles taking part in an intended movement as already indicated by the "memory drum theory", another is the change of activation of the CNS which might be influenced by the change of forearm positions, and that the change of EMG-RTs with varying wrist positions is induced according to the "memory drum theory".

Simple reaction time as a function of response complexity: memory drum theory revisited.

The prediction emanating from memory drum theory (Henry & Rogers, 1960') that simple reaction time (SRT) increases as a response becomes more complex (i.e., increases in number of movement parts) was investigated. Experiments 1 (N = 20) and 3 (N = 16) indicated that SRT was longer for responses consisting of two and three parts than it was for a one-part response and this may be interpreted as support for the prediction. Failing to support the prediction, however, was the finding that SRT was essentially the same for responses consisting of two and three parts. This may not be too damaging to the theory because it could simply be reflecting an upper limit in terms of numbers of parts or response duration for causing an increase in SRT. Experiments 2 (N = 20) and 3 revealed an SRT effect between two responses that were supposed to be equal in complexity. At first, this finding appeared to be contrary to the prediction, but it may be interpreted as support for it because one of the responses defined as having one movement part could actually have had two

Memory drum theory: alternative tests and explanations for the complexity effects on simple reaction time.

Two experiments investigated the memory drum theory's prediction (Henry & Rogers, 1960) that simple reaction time (SRT) increased with the complexity of the response to be initiated. Experiment 1 (N = 9) matched the Experiment 1, Group 1, SRT condition described by Henry and Rogers. Results of Experiment 1 replicated those of Henry and Rogers and indicated that the memory drum theory's prediction of increased SRT as a function of increased complexity of response was tenable. Experiment 2 (N = 11) tested the effects of anatomical unit, extent and target size on SRT, premotor time, and motor time. The results supported the contention that alternative explanations for SRT were possible. With complexity constant, increases in anatomical unit lead to increases in SRT, but only in the motor time component which indicated electromechanical rather than neuromotor program delays. It is proposed that the increased motor time could be explained by peripheral events such as the duration maximum torque must be applied by the agonist muscle(s) to generate the angular acceleration required to initiate rapid movement. SRT, premotor time, and motor time increased when target size was reduced from 6.35 cm to 79 cm. The increased premotor time could be a function of the determining of new equilibrium points for the elbow joint during response initiation. No effects on SRT were observed for extent.

Programming time as a function of response duration: a replication of "dit-dah" without possible guessing artifacts.

Reaction time was longer prior to longer-lasting pressing responses for low probability, unanticipated movements. By contrast, reaction time was independent of response duration for high probability, anticipated movements. This replicates and extends previous findings for choice and simple reaction time in the "dit-dah" paradigm. The present results (unanticipated responses) cannot be given a selective anticipation interpretation because the comparison is between responses which are never anticipated. The previous paradigm was open to an alternative interpretation in which selective anticipation of dit rather than dah could have produced the differences in choice reaction time. Confirmation of the finding that variations in required response duration lead to differences in reaction time supports the view that the underlying parameter of "complexity" in the "memory drum theory" may be response duration.

Use of simple reaction time in motor programming studies: a reply to Klapp, Wyatt and Lingo.

Following a more explicit explanation of the 1960 memory-drum theory and the reasons for using the simple (rather than choice) RT method in testing predictions based on it, the eight experiments utilizing large-scale precued arm movements constrained as to directional accuracy are reviewed. In all cases, increasing complexity of the movement consistently increased response latency; control RT levels agreed with well-established typical values for auditory and visual stimuli. Following practice the complexity effect leveled off, retaining a significant latency differential. Results from experiments varying duration of a held movement position (with movement minimal and complexity invariant) are not relevant to these studies.

Perceived Task Complexity and Reaction Time on a Single Trial and A Series of Trials

The time required to begin movement toward a panel of lights and switches of two different complexity levels was investigated in both a between-subjects and within-subjects design. In the between-subjects design, the mean RT on the subjects' first trial was longer to the more complex task, supporting the memory-drum theory of Henry and Rogers (1960). In the within-subjects design, a significant complexity x order x blocks interaction showed that the subjects receiving the less complex task first responded differently than subjects receiving the more complex task first. Implications for experimental design in investigations of task complexity are discussed.

Preparatory Set, Response Complexity, and Reaction Latency

The interaction between preparatory set and response complexity was demonstrated in an experiment investigating the reaction latency of discrete arm movements. Following simple finger-lift reaction-time (RT) trials, subjects performed simple and complex versions of a discrete horizontal arm movement under one of two enforced preparatory set conditions. For the simple task, requiring subjects to attend to the components of the response prior to stimulus presentation (enforced motor set) produced significantly shorter RTs than when concentration was on the stimulus (enforced sensory set). However, RT differences for the complex version of the task failed significance. Theoretical implications of the results for Henry's (1960) memory drum theory of neuromotor reaction were discussed.

Response Programming in Simple and Choice Reactions

Changing the nature of a motor response can produce a reliable change in choice reaction time, while the corresponding effect for simple reaction time is unreliable, and disappears with appropriate instructions and practice. The reliable effect for choice reactions was attributed to a component of the reaction time in which the response is programmed. This programming can be done in advance of the simple reaction-time interval thereby eliminating this component from the measured simple reaction time, although S may not necessarily take advantage of this possibility. According to this analysis, the Henry and Rogers "memory drum theory(") applies to choice reactions but not necessarily to the simple reactions which have been the primary basis for previous demonstrations.

Perceived Occurrence of the Second of Two Closely Spaced Stimuli in a Long Movement

A 75-deg. movement of the arm in the vertical plane was used to examine the conscious perception of the apparent time of occurrence of a reversal signal S2. A marked perceptual delay was found whether S2 occurred during or after the reaction time to the first stimulus. This finding was consistent with Henry's memory drum theory of neuromotor response, as well as with the efference theory of conscious perception proposed by Festinger and associates.

Psychological Refractoriness and the Latency Time of Two Consecutive Motor Responses

Abstract When the response movements are as short and simple as possible, the time lag between stimulus and response for one movement is shortened by introducing the stimulus for a second movement during the latent period for the first (usually about .22 sec). Under these conditions the latent period of the second movement is increased about 25 percent. This does not seem to be caused by true psychological refractoriness, since ability to accept the second stimulus and respond to it is still present. A control experiment furnishes evidence that it is probably a foreperiod-expectancy phenomenon. The length of the response latency of a simple single movement is increased about 40 percent if conditions are altered so that a second stimulus requiring a second movement is expected some time within a half-second after the first stimulus. All of these results are consistent with the recent memory drum theory of neuromotor response.