Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 229, Issue 3, pp 359–372 | Cite as

Explicit knowledge and real-time action control: anticipating a change does not make us respond more quickly

  • Brendan D. Cameron
  • Darian T. Cheng
  • Romeo Chua
  • Paul van Donkelaar
  • Gordon Binsted
Research Article

Abstract

When the target of a goal-directed reach changes location, people normally respond rapidly and automatically to the target shift. Here, we investigate whether explicit knowledge about a moving target (knowing whether a location change is likely/unlikely) improves responsiveness, with the goal of understanding top-down effects on real-time reaching. In Experiment 1, we presented participants with pre-cues that indicated a 20 or 80 % likelihood of a target perturbation on that trial. When participants made pro-pointing responses to the target perturbations, their online response occurred later for 20 % trials than for 80 % trials, but this effect may have been due to suppression of the online response on 20 % trials, rather than enhancement of the response on 80 % trials. In Experiment 2, we presented participants with 50 and 100 % likelihood pre-cues, and observed no shortening of the latency on 100 % trials compared to 50 % trials, which suggests that expectation does not enhance the automatic response to a perturbation. However, we did observe more vigorous responses to the perturbation on the 100 % trials, and this contributed to shorter movement times relative to the 50 % trials. We also examined, in Experiment 2, whether prior knowledge about the direction of the target perturbation would shorten the latency of the online response, but we did not observe any reduction in latency. In sum, the onset of the automatic response appears to be suppressible, but not augmentable by top-down input. The possibility that the forcefulness of the automatic response is modifiable by expectation is examined, but not resolved.

Keywords

Automatic pilot Online control Reaching Volition Expectation 

References

  1. Aivar P, Brenner E, Smeets JBJ (2008) Avoiding moving obstacles. Exp Brain Res 190:251–264PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baldauf D, Wolf M, Deubel H (2006) Deployment of visual attention before sequences of goal-directed hand movements. Vis Res 46:4355–4374PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boulinguez P, Nougier V (1999) Control of goal-directed movements: the contribution of orienting of visual attention and motor preparation. Acta Psychol 103:21–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brainard DH (1997) The psychophysics toolbox. Spat Vis 10:433–436PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brenner E, Smeets JBJ (1997) Fast responses of the human hand to changes in target position. J Motor Behav 29:297–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brenner E, Smeets JBJ (2003) Fast corrections of movements with a computer mouse. Spat Vis 16:365–376PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cameron BD, Cressman EK, Franks IM, Chua R (2009) Cognitive constraint on the ‘automatic pilot’ for the hand: movement intention influences the hand’s susceptibility to involuntary online corrections. Conscious Cogn 18:646–652PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cameron BD, Franks IM, Inglis JT, Chua R (2010) Reach adaptation to explicit vs. implicit target error. Exp Brain Res 203:367–380PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cameron BD, Franks IM, Inglis JT, Chua R (2011) Reach adaptation to online target error. Exp Brain Res 209:171–180PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cressman EK, Franks IM, Enns JT, Chua R (2006) No automatic pilot for visually guided aiming based on colour. Exp Brain Res 171:174–183PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cressman EK, Cameron BD, Lam MY, Franks IM, Chua R (2010) Movement duration does not affect automatic online control. Hum Mov Sci 29:871–881PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Day BL, Lyon IN (2000) Voluntary modification of automatic arm movements evoked by motion of a visual target. Exp Brain Res 130:159–168PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Desmurget M, Grafton S (2000) Forward modeling allows feedback control for fast reaching movements. Trends Cogn Sci 4:423–431PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Desmurget M, Epstein CM, Turner RS, Prablanc C, Alexander GE, Grafton ST (1999) Role of the posterior parietal cortex in updating reaching movements to a visual target. Nat Neurosci 2:563–567Google Scholar
  15. Deubel H, Schneider WX (1996) Saccade target selection and object recognition: evidence for a common attentional mechanism. Vis Res 36:1827–1837PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Deubel H, Schneider WX, Paprotta I (1998) Selective dorsal and ventral processing: evidence for a common attentional mechanism in reaching and perception. Vis Cogn 5:81–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Diedrichsen J, Hashambhoy Y, Rane T, Shadmehr R (2005) Neural correlates of reach errors. J Neurosci 25:9919–9931PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Filevich E, Kuhn S, Haggard P (2012) Intentional inhibition in human action: the power of ‘no’. Neurosci Biobehav R 36:1107–1118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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 320:748–750Google Scholar
  20. Gritsenko V, Yakovenko S, Kalaska JF (2009) Integration of predictive feedforward and sensory feedback signals for online control of visually-guided movement. J Neurophysiol 102:2375–2388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Heath M, Maraj A, Maddigan M, Binsted G (2009) The antipointing task: vector inversion is supported by a perceptual estimate of visual space. J Motor Behav 41:383–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hick WE (1952) On the rate of gain of information. Q J Exp Psychol 4:11–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hoffman JE, Subramaniam B (1995) The role of visual attention in saccadic eye movements. Atten Percept Psychophys 57:787–795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Magescas F, Prablanc C (2006) Automatic drive of limb motor plasticity. J Cogn Neurosci 18:75–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McIntosh RD, Mulroue A, Brockmole JR (2010) How automatic is the hand’s automatic pilot? Evidence from dual-task studies. Exp Brain Res 206:257–269PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pelli DG (1997) The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: transforming numbers into movies. Spat Vis 10:437–442PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pelisson D, Prablanc C, Goodale MA, Jeannerod M (1986) Visual control of reaching movements without vision of the limb. Exp Brain Res 62:303–311Google Scholar
  28. Pisella L, Grea H, Tilikete C, Vighetto A, Desmurget M, Rode G, Boisson D, Rossetti Y (2000) An ‘automatic pilot’ for the hand in human posterior parietal cortex: toward reinterpreting optic ataxia. Nat Neurosci 3:729–736PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Prablanc C, Martin O (1992) Automatic control during hand reaching at undetected two-dimensional target displacements. J Neurophysiol 67:455–469PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Striemer CL, Yukovsky J, Goodale MA (2010) Can intention override the “automatic pilot”? Exp Brain Res 202:623–632PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wijdenes LO, Brenner E, Smeets JBJ (2011) Fast and fine-tuned corrections when the target of a hand movement is displaced. Exp Brain Res 214:453–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brendan D. Cameron
    • 1
  • Darian T. Cheng
    • 2
  • Romeo Chua
    • 3
  • Paul van Donkelaar
    • 2
  • Gordon Binsted
    • 2
  1. 1.Departament de Psicologia BasicaUniversitat de BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.School of Health and Exercise SciencesUniversity of British ColumbiaKelownaCanada
  3. 3.School of KinesiologyUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations