Abstract
Reports of spatial interactions between current and upcoming elements in a movement sequence could be due to intentional planning of a “global” action sequence (i.e., strategic effects), or to unintentional motor planning arising from merely paying attention to upcoming target objects (i.e., interference effects). The purpose of this experiment was to determine whether paying attention to an upcoming target object could induce kinematic changes in a current grasping action when there is no strategic advantage associated with such changes. Specifically, participants grasped a rectangular target object in the presence of a second rectangular object that was either ignored, or was the target of a subsequent grasping or perceptual judgment task. Peak grip aperture during the primary grasping action was assessed in relation to the size of the second rectangle. The results revealed an effect of the second rectangle’s size only when it was the target of a subsequent perceptual judgment task. This result calls into question the assumption that interactions between current and subsequent elements of an action sequence are necessarily due to strategic movement planning processes and might instead arise from interference arising from merely paying attention to nontarget objects.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ariely D (2001) Seeing sets: representation by statistical properties. Psychol Sci 12:157–162. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00327
Castiello U (1996) Grasping a fruit: selection for action. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 22:582
Castiello U (1999) Mechanisms of selection for the control of hand action. Trends Cogn Sci 3:264–271. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(99)01346-7
Goodale MA, Westwood DA (2004) An evolving view of duplex vision: separate but interacting cortical pathways for perception and action. Curr Opin Neurobiol 2:203–211. doi:10.1016/j.conb.2004.03.002
Goodale MA, Pelisson D, Prablanc C (1986) Large adjustments in visually guided reaching do not depend on vision of the hand or perception of target displacement. Nature 320:748–750. doi:10.1038/320748a0
Henry FM, Rogers DE (1960) Increased response latency for complicated movements and a “memory drum” theory of neuromotor reaction. Res Q Exerc Sport 31:448–458
Hesse C, Deubel H (2010) Advance planning in sequential pick–and–place tasks. J Neurophysiol 104:508–516. doi:10.1152/jn.00097.2010
Jakobson LS, Goodale MA (1991) Factors affecting higher-order movement planning: a kinematic analysis of human prehension. Exp Brain Res 86:199–208
Jeannerod M (1984) The timing of natural prehension movements. J Mot Behav 16:235–254
Jeannerod M, Arbib A, Rizzolatti G, Sakata H (1995) Grasping objects: the cortical mechanisms of visuomotor transformation. Trends Neurosci 18:314–320. doi:10.1016/0166-2236(95)93921-J
Khan MA, Mourton S, Buckolz E, Franks IM (2008) The influence of advance information on the response complexity effect in manual aiming movements. Acta Psychol 127(1):154–162. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2007.04.001
Khan MA, Motttram TM, Adam JJ, Buckolz E (2010) Sequential aiming with two limbs and the one-target advantage. J Mot Behav 42:325–330. doi:10.1080/00222895.2010.510544
Neyedli HF, Welsh TN (2012) The processes of facilitation and inhibition in a cue-target paradigm: insight from movement trajectory deviations. Acta Psychol 139:159–165. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.11.001
Parma V, Roverato R, Ghirardello D, Bulgheroni M, Tirindelli R, Castiello U (2011) When flavor guides motor control: an effector independence study. Exp Brain Res 212:339–346. doi:10.1007/s00221-011-2733-9
Pavese A, Buxbaum LJ (2002) Action matters: the role of action plans and object affordances in selection for action. Vis Cogn 9:559–590
Rand MK, Alberts JL, Stelmach GE, Bloedel JR (1997) The influence of movement segment difficulty on movements with two-stroke sequence. Exp Brain Res 115:137–146. doi:10.1007/PL00005673
Riddoch MJ, Edwards MG, Humphreys GW, Healfield T (1998) Visual affordances direct action: neuropsychological evidence from manual interference. Cogn Neuropsychol 15:645–683. doi:10.1080/026432998381041
Rosenbaum DA, Marchak F, Barnes HJ, Vaughan J, Slotta JD, Jorgensen MJ (1990) Constraints for action selection: overhand versus underhand grip. In: Jeannerod M (ed) Attention and performance XIII. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 321–342
Schindler I, Rice NJ, McIntosh RD, Rossetti Y, Vighetto A, Milner AD (2004) Automatic avoidance of obstacles is a dorsal stream function: evidence from optic ataxia. Nat Neurosci 7(7):779–784. doi:10.1038/nn1273
Singhal A, Monaco S, Kaufman LD, Culham JC (2013) Human fMRI reveals hat delayed action re-recruits visual perception. PLoS ONE 8:1–16. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0073629
Tipper SP, Lortie C, Baylis GC (1992) Selective reaching: evidence for action-centered attention. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 18(4):891
Tipper SP, Howard LA, Houghton G (1998) Action-based mechanisms of attention. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 353:1385–1393. doi:10.1098/rstb.1998.0292
Welsh TN, Elliott D (2004) Movement trajectories in the presence of a distracting stimulus: evidence for a response activation model of selective reaching. Q J Exp Psychol Sect A 57(6):1031–1057
Westwood DA, Goodale MA (2003) Perceptual illusion and the real-time control of action. Spat Vis 16:243–254
Yoon EY, Heinke D, Humphreys GW (2002) Modeling direct perceptual constraints on action selection: the naming and action model (NAM). Vis Cogn 9:615–661
Acknowledgments
DAW was supported by a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (Canada) Discovery Grant.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of interest
None.
Ethical approval
All procedures performed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
LeBlanc, K.A., Westwood, D.A. Sequential actions: effects of upcoming perceptual and motor tasks on current actions. Exp Brain Res 234, 955–962 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-015-4511-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-015-4511-6