Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 207, Issue 1–2, pp 133–138 | Cite as

Extending Fitts’ Law to three-dimensional obstacle-avoidance movements: support for the posture-based motion planning model

  • Jonathan Vaughan
  • Deborah A. Barany
  • Anthony W. Sali
  • Steven A. Jax
  • David A. Rosenbaum
Research Note


According to Fitts’ Law, the time (MT) to move to a target is a linear function of the logarithm of the ratio between the target’s distance and width. Although Fitts’ Law accurately predicts MTs for direct movements, it does not accurately predict MTs for indirect movements, as when an obstacle intrudes on the direct movement path. To address this limitation, Jax et al. (2007) added an obstacle-intrusion term to Fitts’ Law. They accurately predicted MTs around obstacles in two-dimensional (2-D) workspaces, but their model had one more parameter than Fitts’ Law did and was merely descriptive. In this study, we addressed these concerns by turning to the mechanistic, posture-based (PB) movement planning model. The PB-based model accounted for almost as much MT variance in a 3-D movement task as the model of Jax et al., with only two parameters, the same number of parameters as in Fitts’ Law.


Fitts’ law Obstacle Movement time Motor control Reaching 


  1. Beamish D, Bhatti S, Chubbs CS, MacKenzie IS, Wu J, Jing Z (2009) Estimation of psychomotor delay from the Fitts’ law coefficients. Biol Cyber 101:279–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bullock D, Bongers RM, Lankhorst M, Beek PJ (1999) A vector-integration-to-endpoint model for performance of viapoint movements. Neural Netw 12:1–29CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Cruse H, Brüwer M, Dean J (1993) Control of three- and four-joint arm movement: strategies for a manipulator with redundant degrees of freedom. J Motor Behav 25:131–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Elliot D, Helsen WF, Chua R (2001) A century later: Woodworth’s (1899) two component model of goal-directed aiming. Psychol Bull 127:342–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fischer MH, Rosenbaum DA, Vaughan J (1997) Speed and sequential effects in reaching. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 23:404–428CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Fitts PM (1954) The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. J Exp Psychol 47:381–391CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Fitts PM, Peterson JR (1964) Information capacity of discrete motor responses. J Exp Psychol 67:103–112CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Jax SA, Rosenbaum DA, Vaughan (2007) Extending Fitts’ Law to manual obstacle avoidance. Exp Brain Res 180:775–779CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Meyer DE, Abrams RA, Kornblum S, Wright CE, Smith JE (1988) Optimality in human motor performance: ideal control of rapid aimed movements. Psychol Rev 95:340–370CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Murata A, Iwase H (2001) Extending Fitts’ law to a three-dimensional pointing task. Hum Mov Sci 20:791–805CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Rosenbaum DA, Loukopoulos LD, Meulenbroek RGJ, Vaughan J, Engelbrecht SE (1995) Planning reaches by evaluating stored postures. Psychol Rev 102:28–67CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Rosenbaum DA, Meulenbroek RJ, Vaughan J, Jansen C (2001) Posture-based motion planning: applications to grasping. Psychol Rev 108:709–734CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Rosenbaum DA, Cohen R, Dawson A, Jax SA, Meulenbroek RGJ, van der Wel RPRD, Vaughan J (2009) The posture-based motion planning framework: New findings related to object manipulation, moving around obstacles, moving in three spatial dimensions, and haptic tracking. In: Sternad D (ed) Progress in motor control–a multidisciplinary perspective. Springer, Berlin, pp 485–498Google Scholar
  14. Sabes PN, Jordan MI, Wolpert DM (1998) The role of inertial sensitivity in motor planning. J Neurosci 18:5948–5957PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Shannon C (1948) A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Sys Tech J 27:379–423Google Scholar
  16. Tipper SP, Howard LA, Jackson SR (1997) Selective reaching to grasp: evidence for distractor interference effects. Vis Cogn 4:1–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Vaughan J, Rosenbaum DA, Meulenbroek RGJ (2001) Planning reaching and grasping movements: the problem of obstacle avoidance. Mot Control 5:116–135Google Scholar
  18. Vaughan J, Rosenbaum DA, Meulenbroek RGJ (2006) Modeling reaching and manipulating in 2- and 3-D workspaces: the posture-based model. In: Proceedings of fifth international conference on development and learning, Indiana UniversityGoogle Scholar
  19. Worringham CJ (1993) Predicting motor performance from variability measures. In: Newell KM, Corcos DM (eds) Variability and motor control. Human Kinetics, Champaign, pp 53–63Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jonathan Vaughan
    • 1
  • Deborah A. Barany
    • 1
  • Anthony W. Sali
    • 1
  • Steven A. Jax
    • 2
  • David A. Rosenbaum
    • 3
  1. 1.Hamilton CollegeClintonUSA
  2. 2.Moss Rehabilitation Research InstitutePhiladelphiaUSA
  3. 3.Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations