Reacting With or Without Detecting.

We begin our response by clarifying the concept of detection, and explaining why this is needed for initiating, but not for adjusting a movement. We present a simulation to illustrate this difference. Several commentators referred to studies with results that might seem in conflict with our proposal that movement adjustments have short latencies because there is no need to detect anything. In the last part of our response, we discuss how we interpret these studies as being in line with our proposal.

[1]  David A Rosenbaum,et al.  Are Motor Adjustments Quick Because They Don't Require Detection or Because They Escape Competition? , 2016, Motor control.

[2]  Brendan D. Cameron,et al.  Volitional Initiation and Fast Visuomotor Networks: Why Movements are Slow to Start and Quick to Correct. , 2016, Motor control.

[3]  R. Ivry,et al.  The coordination of movement: optimal feedback control and beyond , 2010, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[4]  H. Collewijn,et al.  Early components of the human vestibulo-ocular response to head rotation: latency and gain. , 2000, Journal of neurophysiology.

[5]  E. Brenner,et al.  Fast Responses of the Human Hand to Changes in Target Position. , 1997, Journal of motor behavior.

[6]  Leonie Oostwoud Wijdenes,et al.  Movement Adjustments Have Short Latencies Because There is No Need to Detect Anything. , 2016, Motor control.

[7]  Stephen H Scott,et al.  Online Corrections are Faster Because Movement Initiation Must Disengage Postural Control. , 2016, Motor control.

[8]  Stan Gielen.  Stimulus Detection, Identification, and Response Preparation: What the Arm Can Learn From the Eye. , 2016, Motor control.

[9]  Tadashi Isa,et al.  Reflexive limb selection and control of reach direction to moving targets in cats, monkeys, and humans. , 2010, Journal of neurophysiology.

[10]  A. Reichenbach.  The Detection Continuum for Motor Control Comprises Preparation and Adjustments. , 2016, Motor control.

[11]  R. Shadmehr,et al.  Interacting Adaptive Processes with Different Timescales Underlie Short-Term Motor Learning , 2006, PLoS biology.

[12]  Eli Brenner,et al.  Analysis of methods to determine the latency of online movement adjustments , 2014, Behavior research methods.

[13]  Peter J Beek,et al.  Optimising filtering parameters for a 3D motion analysis system. , 2015, Journal of electromyography and kinesiology : official journal of the International Society of Electrophysiological Kinesiology.

[14]  William J. M. A. Maloney,et al.  THE COÖRDINATION OF MOVEMENT , 1914 .

[15]  Eli Brenner,et al.  The latency for correcting a movement depends on the visual attribute that defines the target , 2008, Experimental Brain Research.

[16]  Eli Brenner,et al.  Hitting a target is fundamentally different from avoiding obstacles , 2015, Vision Research.

[17]  R. Sainburg,et al.  Error Detection is Critical for Visual-Motor Corrections. , 2016, Motor control.

[18]  E. Brenner,et al.  Fast corrections of movements with a computer mouse. , 2003, Spatial vision.

[19]  D Voudouris,et al.  Ultra-fast selection of grasping points. , 2013, Journal of neurophysiology.

[20]  E. Brenner,et al.  Comparing Online Adjustments to Distance and Direction in Fast Pointing Movements , 2013, Journal of motor behavior.

[21]  David W Franklin,et al.  Rapid Feedback Responses Arise From Precomputed Gains. , 2016, Motor control.

[22]  Fabrice R Sarlegna,et al.  Visual guidance of arm reaching: online adjustments of movement direction are impaired by amplitude control. , 2010, Journal of vision.

[23]  S. Gielen,et al.  Choice reaction times for human head rotations are shortened by startling acoustic stimuli, irrespective of stimulus direction , 2007 .