Skip to main content
Log in

Non-target flanker effects on movement in a virtual action centred reference frame

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Experimental Brain Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Visual selective attention is thought to underly inhibitory control during pointing movements. Accounts of inhibitory control during pointing movements make differential predictions about movement deviations towards or away from highly salient non-target flankers based on their potential cortical activation and subsequent inhibition: (1) Tipper et al. (Vis Cogn 4:1–38, 1997) “response vector model” predicts movements away from highly salient flankers; (2) Welsh and Elliott’s (Q J Exp Psychol 57:1031–1057, 2004a and J Mot Behav 36:200–211, 2004b) “response activation model” predicts movements towards highly salient flankers early in the response, that is resolved by a race for inhibition. To eliminate the confounds of physical properties, such as obstacle avoidance and information cues of non-target objects, pointing was conducted in a virtual environment (graphical user interface). Participants were 14 skilled computer users who moved a computer cursor with a mouse to virtual targets. Analysis revealed non-target flankers significantly interfered with movement consistent with action centred selective attention, and reflecting a proximity-to-hand effect. Spatial analysis revealed evidence of highly salient flankers attracting movement, and less salient flankers repelling movement, supporting Welsh and Elliott’s response activation model. These effects were achieved in a virtual 2D environment where interference caused by the physical properties of objects was less cogent.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Chang SW, Abrams RA (2004) Hand movements deviate toward distracters in the absence of response competition. J Gen Psychol 131(4):328–344

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Erlbaum, Hillsdale

    Google Scholar 

  • Cordo PJ, Nashner LM (1982) Properties of postural adjustments associated with rapid arm movements. J Neurophysiol 47:287–302

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Finch MA, Phillips JG, Meehan JW (2007) Effects of compatibility and turning biases on arrowhead cursor placement in graphical user interfaces. Comput Hum Behav

  • Georgopoulos AP (1990) Neurophysiology of reaching. In: Jeannerod M (ed) Attention and performance XIII. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, pp 227–263

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard L, Tipper SP (1997) Hand deviations away from visual cues: indirect evidence for inhibition. Exp Brain Res 113:144–152

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kritikos A, Bennett KMB, Dunai J, Castiello U (2000) Interference from distractors in reach-to-grasp movements. Q J Exp Psychol 53A:131–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lacquaniti F (1996) Neural control of limb mechanics for visuomanual coordination. In: Wing AM, Haggard P, Flanagan JR (ed) Hand and brain. Academic, San Diego, pp. 213–237

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyons J, Elliott D, Ricker KL, Weeks TN, Chua R (1999) Action-centred attention in virtual environments. Can J Exp Psychol 53:176–187

    Google Scholar 

  • Meegan DV, Tipper SP (1998) Reaching into cluttered visual environments: spatial and temporal influences of distracting objects. Q J Exp Psychol 51:225–249

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Nagylaki T (1973) Sampling truncated distributions. Behav Genet 3:193–196

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Paulignan Y, Jeannerod M (1996) Prehension movements: the visuomotor channels hypothesis revisited. In: Wing AM, Haggard P, Flanagan JR (eds) Hand and brain. Academic, San Diego, pp 265–282

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips JG, Triggs TJ (2001) Characteristics of cursor trajectories controlled by the computer mouse. Ergonomics 44:527–536

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips JG, Triggs TJ, Meehan JW (2005) Forward/up directional incompatibilities during cursor placement within graphical user interfaces. Ergonomics 48:722–735

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pratt J, Abrams RA (1994) Action-centered inhibition: effects of distractors on movement planning and execution. Hum Mov Sci 13:245–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rizzolatti G, Riggio L, Sheliga BM (1994) Space and selective attention. In: Umilta C, Moscovitch M (eds) Attention and performance XV. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp. 231–265

    Google Scholar 

  • Stelmach GE, Phillips J, Di Fabio RP, Teasdale N (1989) Age, functional postural reflexes and voluntary sway. J Gerontol Biol Sci 44:B100–106

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tipper SP, Lortie C, Baylis GC (1992) Selective reaching: evidence for action-centered attention. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 18:891–905

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tipper SP, Howard LA, Jackson SR (1997) Selective reaching to grasp: evidence for distractor interference effects. Vis Cogn 4:1–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tipper SP, Howard LA, Houghton G (2000) Behavioral consequences of selection from neural population codes. In: Monsell S, Driver J (eds) Attention and performance, XVIII. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 223–245

    Google Scholar 

  • Tipper SP, Howard LA, Paul MA (2001) Reaching affects saccade trajectories. Exp Brain Res 136(2):241–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tresilian JR (1998) Attention in action or obstruction of movement? A kinematic analysis of avoidance behavior in prehension. Exp Brain Res 120:352–368

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Triggs TJ (1980) The influence of oncoming vehicles on automobile lateral position. Hum Factors 22:427–433

    Google Scholar 

  • Weir PL, Weeks DJ, Welsh TN, Elliott D, Chua R et al (2003) Influence of terminal action requirements on action-centered distractor effects. Exp Brain Res 149:207–213

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Welsh TN, Elliott D (2004a) Movement trajectories in the presence of a distracting stimulus: evidence for a response activation model of selective reaching. Q J Exp Psychol 57:1031–1057

    Google Scholar 

  • Welsh TN, Elliott D (2004b) Effects of response priming and inhibition on movement planning and execution. J Mot Behav 36:200–211

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Welsh TN, Elliott D (2005) The effects of response priming on the planning and execution of goal-directed movements in the presence of a distracting stimulus. Acta Psychol 119:123–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welsh TN, Elliott D, Weeks DJ (1999) Hand deviations toward distractors: evidence for response competition. Exp Brain Res 127:207–212

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James G. Phillips.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Carr, S.M., Phillips, J.G. & Meehan, J.W. Non-target flanker effects on movement in a virtual action centred reference frame. Exp Brain Res 184, 95–103 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-007-1078-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-007-1078-x

Keywords

Navigation