Programming time as a function of number of movement parts and changes in movement direction.

The question of whether changes seen in simple reaction time (SRT) as a function of response complexity (i.e., number of movement parts) should be considered as differences in the time needed to centrally program a motor response was addressed. Using a large-scale tapping response, 14 subjects contacted from one to five targets positioned in a straight line, while a second group of 14 subjects executed 90 degrees changes in direction in striking the targets. Results revealed that mean SRT and mean premotor time increased linearly as the number of movement parts increased, regardless of whether changes in movement direction had to be programmed, with the greatest increase occurring between one-, and two-part responses. Increases in motor time were not sufficient to account for the sizeable SRT effect. These findings support the position of increased central programming time for more complex responses, and also help establish some of the boundaries of the complexity effect.

[1]  S. T. Klapp,et al.  Response programming in simple and choice reactions. , 1974, Journal of motor behavior.

[2]  S T Klapp,et al.  The memory drum theory after twenty years: comments on Henry's note. , 1980, Journal of motor behavior.

[3]  K. Newell,et al.  Movement time and velocity as determinants of movement timing accuracy. , 1979, Journal of motor behavior.

[4]  M G Fischman,et al.  Simple reaction time as a function of response complexity: memory drum theory revisited. , 1982, Journal of motor behavior.

[5]  J G Anson,et al.  Memory drum theory: alternative tests and explanations for the complexity effects on simple reaction time. , 1982, Journal of motor behavior.

[6]  A. Weiss,et al.  THE LOCUS OF REACTION TIME CHANGE WITH SET, MOTIVATION, AND AGE. , 1965, Journal of gerontology.

[7]  D. J. Glencross,et al.  Latency and response complexity. , 1972, Journal of motor behavior.

[8]  H N Zelaznik,et al.  Target-size influences on reaction time with movement time controlled. , 1980, Journal of motor behavior.

[9]  C A Wrisberg,et al.  Preparatory set, response complexity, and reaction latency. , 1976, Journal of motor behavior.

[10]  B. Kerr,et al.  Task Factors That Influence Selection and Preparation for Voluntary Movements , 1978 .

[11]  F M Henry,et al.  Use of simple reaction time in motor programming studies: a reply to Klapp, Wyatt and Lingo. , 1980, Journal of motor behavior.

[12]  Stephen Monsell,et al.  The Latency and Duration of Rapid Movement Sequences: Comparisons of Speech and Typewriting , 1978 .

[13]  S. Geisser,et al.  On methods in the analysis of profile data , 1959 .

[14]  R G Marteniuk,et al.  Timing and Torque Involvement in the Organisation of a Rapid Forearm Flexion , 1983, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[15]  D J Glencross,et al.  Response complexity and the latency of different movement patterns. , 1973, Journal of motor behavior.

[16]  S T Klapp,et al.  Motor programming is not the only process which can influence RT: some thoughts on the Marteniuk and MacKenzie analysis. , 1981, Journal of motor behavior.

[17]  Martenuik Rg,et al.  Methods in the study of motor programming: is it just a matter of simple vs. choice reaction time? A comment on Klapp et al. (1979). , 1981 .

[18]  S. T. Klapp,et al.  Simple and choice reaction time methods in the study of motor programming. , 1979, Journal of motor behavior.