Adaptation of motor control strategies to environmental cues in a pursuit-tracking task

Abstract

Visually guided tracking paradigms can provide insight into the adaptability of motor control strategies. We argue that the question of whether a sensorimotor process, or its absence, is beneficial or detrimental for performance is one that needs to be answered relative to the sensory cues available in the environment and the given task constraints. In this paper, we describe how and when environmental cues have task-dependent benefits. We used a new pursuit-tracking paradigm and added, removed, or replaced cues within the same tracking task in either predictable or unpredictable environments to investigate the use and adaptability of different control strategies. Participants were invited to perform a tracking task over six blocks in six different conditions. Compared to a condition where both target and control cursor (cues) were visible, performance was maintained when a cue was added and decreased when a cue was removed. Our results show that participants only learned to use new cues if the old one was removed and the replacement was valid. This means that the sensorimotor system adapts only if forced to do so instead of constantly exploiting optimization strategies.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. de Oliveira RF, Wann JP (2010) Integration of dynamic information for visuomotor control in adolescents with DCD. Exp Brain Res 205:387–394

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Gigerenzer G, Dieckmann A, Gaissmaier W (2012) Efficient cognition through limited search. In: Todd PM, Gigerenzer G, ABC Research Group (eds) Ecological rationality: intelligence in the world. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 241–273

    Google Scholar 

  3. Hah S, Jagacinski RJ (1994) The relative dominance of schemata in a manual tracking task: input patterns, system dynamics, and movement patterns. J Mot Behav 26:204–214

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Hill H (2009) An event-related potential evoked by movement planning is modulated by performance and learning in visuomotor control. Exp Brain Res 195:519–529

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Hill H, Raab M (2005) Analyzing a complex visuomotor tracking task with brain-electrical event related potentials. Hum Mov Sci 24:1–30

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Imamizu H, Miyauchi S, Tamada T, Sasaki Y, Takino R, Pütz B, Kawato M et al (2000) Human cerebellar activity reflecting an acquired internal model of a new tool. Nat 403:192–195

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Lang A, Gapenne O, Aubert D, Ferrel-Chapus C (2012) Implicit sequence learning in a continuous pursuit-tracking task. Psychol Res. Advanced online publication. doi:10.1007/s00426-012-0460-x

  8. Magill RA (1998) Knowledge is more than we can talk about: implicit learning in motor skill acquisition. Res Q Exerc Sport 69:104–110

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Miall RC, Weir DJ, Stein JF (1993) Intermittency in human manual tracking tasks. J Mot Behav 25:53–63

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Miall RC, Imamizu H, Miyauchi S (2000) Activation of the cerebellum in co-ordinated eye and hand tracking movements: an fMRI study. Exp Brain Res 135:22–33

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Oram MW, Perrett DI (1992) Time course of neural response discriminating different views of the face and head. J Neurophysiol 16:509–530

    Google Scholar 

  12. Pew RW (1974a) Levels of analysis in motor control. Brain Res 71:393–400

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Pew RW (1974b) Human perceptual-motor performance. In: Kantowitz BH (ed) Human information processing tutorials in performance and cognition. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 1–40

    Google Scholar 

  14. Poulton EC (1952) The basis of perceptual anticipation in tracking. Br J Psychol 43:295–302

    Google Scholar 

  15. Poulton EC (1966) Tracking behavior. In: Bilodeau EA (ed) Acquisition of skill. Academic Press, New York, pp 361–410

    Google Scholar 

  16. Raab M (2012) Simple heuristics in sports. Int Rev Sport Exerc Psychol 5:1–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Stanley ML, Franks IM (1990) Learning to organize the frequency components of a perceptual motor skill. Hum Mov Sci 9:291–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Todd PM, Gigerenzer G, ABC Research Group (2012) Ecological rationality: intelligence in the world. Oxford University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  19. Weir DJ, Stein JF, Miall RC (1989) Cues and control strategies in visually guided tracking. J Mot Behav 21:185–204

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Wickens CD (1980) The structure of attentional resources. In: Nickerson R (ed) Attention and performance VII. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 239–257

    Google Scholar 

  21. Wulf G, Schmidt RA (1997) Variability of practice and implicit motor learning. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cognit 23:987–1006

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Markus Raab.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Raab, M., de Oliveira, R.F., Schorer, J. et al. Adaptation of motor control strategies to environmental cues in a pursuit-tracking task. Exp Brain Res 228, 155–160 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-013-3546-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Sensorimotor processes
  • Feedback
  • Feedforward
  • Representation
  • Bounded rationality