Advertisement

End-state comfort meets pre-crastination

  • David A. RosenbaumEmail author
  • Kyle S. Sauerberger
Original Article
  • 28 Downloads

Abstract

Research on motor planning has revealed two seemingly contradictory phenomena. One is the end-state comfort effect, the tendency to grasp objects in physically awkward ways for the sake of comfortable or easy-to-control final postures (Rosenbaum et al., Attention and Performance XIII: Motor representation and control, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1990). The other is pre-crastination, the tendency to hasten the completion of tasks even at the expense of extra physical effort (Rosenbaum et al., Psychol Sci 25:1487–1496, 2014). End-state comfort seems to reflect emphasis on final states, whereas pre-crastination seems to reflect emphasis on initial states. How can both effects exist? We sought to resolve this seeming conflict by noting, first, that the effects have been tested in different contexts. End-state comfort has been tested with grasping, whereas pre-crastination has been tested with walking plus grasping. Second, both effects may reflect planning that aids aiming, as already demonstrated for end-state comfort but not yet tested for pre-crastination. We tested the two effects in a single walk-and-grasp task and found that demands on aiming influenced both effects, although precrastination was not fully influenced by changes in the demands of aiming. We conclude that end-state comfort and precrastination are both aiming-related, but that precrastination also reflects a desire to hasten early task completion.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Supported by a UCR COR grant to the first author. We thank the undergraduate research assistants who helped with data collection, Iman Feghhi and David Funder for helpful comments, and Wilfried Kunde and two anonymous reviewers who helped us improve the article.

References

  1. Archibald, S. J., Mateer, C. A., & Kerns, K. A. (2001). Utilization behavior: Clinical manifestations and neurological mechanisms. Neuropsychology Review, 11, 117–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Augustyn, J. S., & Rosenbaum, D. A. (2006). Metacognitive control of action: Preparation for aiming reflects knowledge of Fitts’ Law. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 911–916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cowie, D., Smith, L., & Braddick, O. (2010). The development of locomotor planning for end-state comfort. Perception, 39, 661–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Einstein, G. O., & McDaniel, M. A. (2005). Prospective memory: Multiple retrieval processes. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 286–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fitts, P. M. (1954). The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47, 381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fournier, L. R., Coder, E., Kogan, C., Raghunath, N., Taddese, E., & Rosenbaum, D. A. (2018a). Which task will we choose first? Precrastination and cognitive load in task ordering. Attention, Perception & Performance.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-018-1633-5 (Published on-line in advance of paper publication).Google Scholar
  7. Fournier, L. R., Stubblefield, A. M., Dyre, B. P., & Rosenbaum, D. A. (2018b). Starting or finishing sooner? Sequencing preferences in object transfer tasks. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-018-1022-7.Google Scholar
  8. Fraley, R. C., & Vazire, S. (2014). The N-pact factor: Evaluating the quality of empirical journals with respect to sample size and statistical power. PLoS ONE. 9(10).Google Scholar
  9. Herbort, O., Mathew, H., & Kunde, W. (2017). Habit outweighs planning in grasp selection for object manipulation. Cognitive Psychology, 92, 127–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hughes, C. M., Seegelke, C., & Schack, T. (2012). The influence of initial and final precision on motor planning: individual differences in end-state comfort during unimanual grasping and placing. Journal of Motor Behavior, 44, 195–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95, 492–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Luce, R. D. (1959). Individual Choice Behavior: A Theoretical Analysis. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  13. Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Rodriguez, M. (1989). Delay of gratification in children. Science, 244, 933–938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Oldfield, R. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9, 97–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Potts, C. A., Brown, A. A., Solnik, S., & Rosenbaum, D. A. (2017). A method for measuring manual positioning control. Acta Psychologica, 180, 117–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rayburn-Reeves, R. M., Molet, M., & Zentall, T. R. (2011). Simultaneous discrimination reversal learning in pigeons and humans: Anticipatory and perseverative errors. Learning & Behavior, 39, 125–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Richtel, M. (2014). Sometimes, early birds are too early. New York Times. page BU3. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/20/business/sometimes-early-birds-are-too-early.html?src=twr&_r=1.
  18. Rosenbaum, D. A. (2012). The tiger on your tail: Choosing between temporally extended behaviors. Psychological Science, 23, 855–860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rosenbaum, D. A. (2017). Knowing Hands—The Cognitive Psychology of Manual Control. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rosenbaum, D. A., Brach, M., & Semenov, A. (2011). Behavioral ecology meets motor behavior: Choosing between walking and reaching paths. Journal of Motor Behavior, 43, 131–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rosenbaum, D. A., Chapman, K. M., Weigelt, M., Weiss, D. J., & van der Wel, R. (2012). Cognition, action, and object manipulation. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 924–946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rosenbaum, D. A., Gong, L., & Potts, C. A. (2014). Pre-crastination: Hastening subgoal completion at the expense of extra physical effort. Psychological Science, 25, 1487–1496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rosenbaum, D. A., Halloran, E., & Cohen, R. G. (2006). Grasping movement plans. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 13, 918–922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rosenbaum, D. A., Marchak, F., Barnes, H. J., Vaughan, J., Slotta, J., & Jorgensen, M. (1990). Constraints for action selection: Overhand versus underhand grips. In M. Jeannerod (Ed.), Attention and Performance XIII: Motor representation and control (pp. 321–342). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  25. Rosenbaum, D. A., van Heugten, C., & Caldwell, G. C. (1996). From cognition to biomechanics and back: The end-state comfort effect and the middle-is-faster effect. Acta Psychologica, 94, 59–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rosenbaum, D. A., Vaughan, J., Jorgensen, M. J., Barnes, H. J., & Stewart, E. (1993). Plans for object manipulation. In D. E. Meyer & S. Kornblum (Eds.), Attention and performance XIV—A silver jubilee: Synergies in experimental psychology, artificial intelligence and cognitive neuroscience (pp. 803–820). Cambridge: MIT Press, Bradford Books.Google Scholar
  27. Sauerberger, K. S., Funder, D. C., & Rosenbaum, D. A. (2018). Pre-crastination as an individual difference (in preparation) Google Scholar
  28. Scharoun, S. M., Gonzalez, D. A., Roy, E. A., & Bryden, P. J. (2018). End-state comfort across the lifespan: A cross-sectional investigation of how movement context influences motor planning in an overturned glass task. Motor Control, 22, 211–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Short, M. W., & Cauraugh, J. (1999). Precision hypothesis and the end-state comfort effect. Acta Psychologica, 100, 243–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Siegel, S., & Castellan, N. J. (1988). Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences (Second Ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  31. Solnik, S., Pazin, N., Coelho, C. J., Rosenbaum, D. A., Scholz, J. P., Zatsiorksy, V. M., & Latash, M. L. (2013). End-state comfort and joint configuration variance during reaching. Experimental Brain Research, 225, 431–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Walsh, M. M., & Rosenbaum, D. A. (2009). Deciding how to act is not achieved by watching mental movies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35, 1481–1489.Google Scholar
  33. Wasserman, E. A., & Brzykcy, S. J. (2015). Pre-crastination in the pigeon. Psychonomic Bulletin Review, 22, 1130–1134.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0758-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of CaliforniaRiversideUSA

Personalised recommendations