The organization of rapid movement sequences as a function of sequence length

Abstract An experiment was performed to test the predictions made by the subprogram retrieval model (Sternberg et al. 1978) for the production of rapid movement sequences, and to search for the maximum number of elements that can be planned in advance of sequence execution. Subjects performed rapid sequences of 1 to 8 finger taps under both simple and choice RT conditions. Increasing sequence length had no effect on choice RT, but caused simple RT to increase nonlinearly, with the greatest effect between 1 and 3 taps. Intertap intervals did not increase as a function of sequence length. The sequences' timing and force patterns suggested that sequences up to 8 taps were organized as single performance units. The results indicate a fundamental difference between activating a plan for a single tap and a sequence plan in which several elements must be coordinated and timed. Increasing the number of elements beyond 3 does not necessarily add processing steps in the selection and activation of the sequence plan, at least for sequences involving the repetition of a simple element.

[1]  M G Fischman,et al.  Programming time as a function of number of movement parts and changes in movement direction. , 1984, Journal of motor behavior.

[2]  C. Eriksen,et al.  Implicit speech: Mechanism in perceptual encoding? , 1970 .

[3]  K. Lashley The problem of serial order in behavior , 1951 .

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

[5]  A. Inhoff Preparing sequences of saccades under choice reaction conditions: effects of sequence length and context. , 1986, Acta psychologica.

[6]  F. M. Henry,et al.  Increased Response Latency for Complicated Movements and A “Memory Drum” Theory of Neuromotor Reaction , 1960 .

[7]  A. Gordon,et al.  Choosing between movement sequences: A hierarchical editor model. , 1984 .

[8]  D J Povel,et al.  Structural factors in patterned finger tapping. , 1982, Acta psychologica.

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

[10]  Gerard P. van Galen,et al.  Programming in handwriting: Reaction time and movement time as a function of sequence length , 1983 .

[11]  S. T. Klapp,et al.  Implicit speech in reading: Reconsidered , 1973 .

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

[13]  G E Stelmach,et al.  Motor Programming and Temporal Patterns in Handwriting a , 1984, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[14]  A Semjen,et al.  Planning and timing of finger-tapping sequences with a stressed element. , 1986, Journal of motor behavior.

[15]  A Semjen,et al.  On Controlling Force and Time in Rhythmic Movement Sequences: The Effect of Stress Location , 1984, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[16]  David A. Rosenbaum,et al.  Stimulus-response compatibility and motor programming of manual response sequences , 1984 .

[17]  Dirk-Jan Povel,et al.  Temporal structure of performed music: Some preliminary observations☆ , 1977 .

[18]  L. H. Shaffer,et al.  Metre and rhythm in piano playing , 1985, Cognition.