Behavioral and electrocortical evidence of an interaction between probability and task metrics in movement preparation

Recent neurophysiological evidence suggests that cognitive factors shape neural activity in cortical areas such as parietal (area 5), premotor, and primary motor cortex. The implication of these findings is that behavioral signatures of cognitive factors and movement-specific factors should likewise be interdependent. The present study provides evidence of this interdependence in both behavioral (reaction time) and electrophysiological (P300) measures. Subjects performed a two-choice pointing task, in which the angular distance between the two required movement directions (task metrics) and the probability of the two responses was varied. In a control condition, a single reaction was required in response to both stimuli to test for the influence of stimulus metrics. Results from the pointing task showed a clear interaction between the metrics and effects of probability. When the potential targets were widely separated (120°), stimulus probability influences reaction time and P300 amplitude in the classic fashion (longer reaction times and larger P300 amplitudes to less probable responses). When pointing to targets that were narrowly separated (20°), probability had no effect: both rare and frequent targets were “functionally frequent.” The same interaction was not observed in the control condition, indicating that metrics were primarily influencing movement preparation rather than stimulus processing. The results are consistent with the theoretical framework of dynamic field theory and demonstrate that metrics are an important factor that must be taken into account when assessing the processes associated with movement preparation.

[1]  C. Christensen,et al.  Late positive ERP peaks observed in stimulus-response compatibility tasks tested under speed-accuracy instructions. , 2001, Psychophysiology.

[2]  Andreas J Fallgatter,et al.  Right frontal activation during the continuous performance test assessed with near-infrared spectroscopy in healthy subjects , 1997, Neuroscience Letters.

[3]  W G Walter,et al.  The effects of attention and distraction on the contingent negative variation in normal and neurotic subjects. , 1968, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[4]  G. Schöner,et al.  The distribution of neuronal population activation (DPA) as a tool to study interaction and integration in cortical representations , 1999, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[5]  D. Regan Human brain electrophysiology: Evoked potentials and evoked magnetic fields in science and medicine , 1989 .

[6]  R A Abrams,et al.  Optimality in human motor performance: ideal control of rapid aimed movements. , 1988, Psychological review.

[7]  J. Polich,et al.  Cognitive and biological determinants of P300: an integrative review , 1995, Biological Psychology.

[8]  J. Wilding,et al.  Effects of stimulus discriminability on the latency distribution of identification responses. , 1974, Acta psychologica.

[9]  K. Zhang,et al.  Representation of spatial orientation by the intrinsic dynamics of the head-direction cell ensemble: a theory , 1996, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[10]  Amir C. Akhavan,et al.  Parametric Population Representation of Retinal Location: Neuronal Interaction Dynamics in Cat Primary Visual Cortex , 1999, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[11]  Apostolos P Georgopoulos,et al.  Neural aspects of cognitive motor control , 2000, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

[12]  S. Hillyard,et al.  Electrical Signs of Selective Attention in the Human Brain , 1973, Science.

[13]  D. Rosenbaum Human movement initiation: specification of arm, direction, and extent. , 1980, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[14]  A Bastian,et al.  Prior information preshapes the population representation of movement direction in motor cortex , 1998, Neuroreport.

[15]  Will Spijkers,et al.  Programming of direction and velocity of an aiming movement: The effect of probability and response-specificity , 1987 .

[16]  E. Donchin,et al.  Is the P300 component a manifestation of context updating? , 1988, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[17]  G. Schöner,et al.  Dynamic Field Theory of Movement Preparation , 2022 .

[18]  William L. Wilkie,et al.  Presidential Address: 1980 , 1981 .

[19]  W. Spijkers,et al.  The relation between response-specificity, S-R compatibility, foreperiod duration and muscle-tension in a target aiming task. , 1990, Acta psychologica.

[20]  O. Bock,et al.  Motor control prior to movement onset: preparatory mechanisms for pointing at visual targets , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.

[21]  R. Johnson,et al.  On the neural generators of the P300 component of the event-related potential. , 2007, Psychophysiology.

[22]  A. Nativ,et al.  Potentials associated with the initiation and inhibition of visually triggered finger movement in humans: the "no-go potential" in the go/no-go paradigm. , 1992, International Journal of Neuroscience.

[23]  E. Thelen,et al.  The dynamics of embodiment: A field theory of infant perseverative reaching , 2001, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[24]  J. T. Massey,et al.  Mental rotation of the neuronal population vector. , 1989, Science.

[25]  B. Hjorth An on-line transformation of EEG scalp potentials into orthogonal source derivations. , 1975, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[26]  E. Donchin Presidential address, 1980. Surprise!...Surprise? , 1981, Psychophysiology.

[27]  C. Brunia The influence of a task on the Achilles tendon and Hoffmann reflex. , 1971, Physiology & behavior.

[28]  Otmar Bock,et al.  The mechanisms of movement preparation: a precuing study , 2000, Behavioural Brain Research.