Motor Programming When Sequencing Multiple Elements of the Same Duration

Motor programming at the self-select paradigm was adopted in 2 experiments to examine the processing demands of independent processes. One process (INT) is responsible for organizing the internal features of the individual elements in a movement (e.g., response duration). The 2nd process (SEQ) is responsible for placing the elements into the proper serial order before execution. Participants in Experiment 1 performed tasks involving 1 key press or sequences of 4 key presses of the same duration. Implementing INT and SEQ was more time consuming for key-pressing sequences than for single key-press tasks. Experiment 2 examined whether the INT costs resulting from the increase in sequence length observed in Experiment 1 resulted from independent planning of each sequence element or via a separate "multiplier" process that handled repetitions of elements of the same duration. Findings from Experiment 2, in which participants performed single key presses or double or triple key sequences of the same duration, suggested that INT is involved with the independent organization of each element contained in the sequence. Researchers offer an elaboration of the 2-process account of motor programming to incorporate the present findings and the findings from other recent sequence-learning research.

[1]  Ian M. Franks,et al.  Dual-task interference as an indicator of on-line programming in simple movement sequences , 1999 .

[2]  L. Kaufman,et al.  Handbook of perception and human performance , 1986 .

[3]  S T Klapp,et al.  Programming time as a function of response duration: a replication of "dit-dah" without possible guessing artifacts. , 1982, Journal of motor behavior.

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

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

[6]  S. T. Klapp,et al.  Relation between programming time and duration of the response being programmed. , 1976, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[7]  Gerard P. van Galen,et al.  Levels of Motor Programming in Writing Familiar and Unfamiliar Symbols , 1988 .

[8]  D. Wright,et al.  Motor programming during practice conditions high and low in contextual interference. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[9]  Ian M. Franks,et al.  On-line programming of simple movement sequences , 1997 .

[10]  Kirrie J. Ballard,et al.  Understanding the nature of apraxia of speech: Theory, analysis, and treatment , 2000 .

[11]  S. T. Klapp,et al.  Motor response programming during simple choice reaction time: The role of practice. , 1995 .

[12]  W. Verwey BUFFER LOADING AND CHUNKING IN SEQUENTIAL KEYPRESSING , 1996 .

[13]  Wolfram Ziegler,et al.  Speech motor programming in apraxia of speech , 2002, J. Phonetics.

[14]  H N Zelaznik,et al.  The specification of digit and duration during motor programming: a new method of precueing. , 1982, Journal of motor behavior.

[15]  Stuart T Klapp,et al.  Reaction Time Analysis of Two Types of Motor Preparation for Speech Articulation: Action as a Sequence of Chunks , 2003, Journal of motor behavior.

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

[17]  F. Vidal,et al.  Programming response duration in a precueing reaction time paradigm. , 1991, Journal of motor behavior.

[18]  S T Klapp,et al.  Response programming, as assessed by reaction time, does not establish commands for particular muscles. , 1977, Journal of motor behavior.

[19]  G. Davies,et al.  Memory in context : context in memory , 1990 .

[20]  Saul Sternberg,et al.  Hierarchical Control in the Execution of Action Sequences: Tests of Two Invariance Properties , 2018, Attention and Performance XIII.

[21]  A. Baddeley,et al.  Context-dependent memory in two natural environments: on land and underwater. , 1975 .

[22]  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.

[23]  H. Pick,et al.  Geometric transformations of handwriting as a function of instruction and feedback. , 1983, Acta psychologica.

[24]  Willem B. Verwey,et al.  Changes in the Incidental Context Impacts Search but not Loading of the Motor Buffer , 2004, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[25]  Ian M. Franks,et al.  Response programming as a function of accuracy and complexity: Evidence from latency and kinematic measures , 1997 .

[26]  S. T. Klapp,et al.  Response programming vs. alternative interpretations of the “dit-dah” reaction time effect , 1978 .

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

[28]  David L Wright,et al.  Long-Term Motor Programming Improvements Occur Via Concatenation of Movement Sequences During Random But Not During Blocked Practice , 2004, Journal of motor behavior.

[29]  C H Shea,et al.  Contextual dependencies in motor skills , 1991, Memory & cognition.

[30]  Ian M. Franks,et al.  Response preparation and latency in patterns of tapping movements , 1989 .

[31]  Willem B. Verwey Mechanisms of skill in sequential motor behavior , 1994 .

[32]  Willem B. Verwey,et al.  Evidence for a multistage model of practice in a sequential movement task. , 1999 .

[33]  H van Mier,et al.  The effects of motor complexity and practice on initiation time in writing and drawing. , 1993, Acta psychologica.

[34]  Les G. Carlton,et al.  Reaction time and response dynamics , 1987 .

[35]  Ian M. Franks,et al.  The control of rapid aiming movements: Variations in response accuracy and complexity , 1997 .