Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Factors underlying age-related changes in discrete aiming

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

Abstract

Age has a clear impact on one’s ability to make accurate goal-directed aiming movements. Older adults seem to plan slower and shorter-ranged initial pulses towards the target, and rely more on sensory feedback to ensure endpoint accuracy. Despite the fact that these age-related changes in manual aiming have been observed consistently, the underlying mechanism remains speculative. In an attempt to isolate four commonly suggested underlying factors, young and older adults were instructed to make discrete aiming movements under varying speed and accuracy constraints. Results showed that older adults were physically able to produce fast primary submovements and that they demonstrated similar movement-programming capacities as young adults. On the other hand, considerable evidence was found supporting a decreased visual feedback-processing efficiency and the implementation of a play-it-safe strategy in older age. In conclusion, a combination of the latter two factors seems to underlie the age-related changes in manual aiming behaviour.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Since this result was rather unexpected, two complementary analyses were performed to control the outcome. First, we investigated whether older adults demonstrated longer reaction times to programme their movements more accurately. SPEED condition data showed that older adults indeed used more time between the GO-stimulus and movement initiation (359 ± 25 ms) compared to young adults [259 ± 19 ms; t(21) = 3.20; p < .01]. However, this difference corresponded to the well-documented changes in simple reaction time with age (e.g., Poston et al. 2009; Yan et al. 1998; see Hinder et al. 2012 for a physiological explanation for longer reaction times in older age), which was also observed in the CONTROL condition [older adults: 427 ± 23 ms, young adults: 333 ± 18 ms; t(21) = 3.13; p < .01]. All in all, these outcomes were therefore seen as evidence that older adults did not deliberately prolong their reaction times in the SPEED condition to programme the aiming movements more accurately.

    Second, a coefficient of determination (R 2) analysis was performed to control whether SPEED condition movements were indeed based primarily on programming processes (Heath 2005; Khan et al. 2006; Messier and Kalaska 1999). In short, such analysis examines the proportion of movement endpoint variability that can be explained by the limb position at different kinematic markers. The rationale behind this regression technique is the following: in case of aiming movements purely based on planning processes, one should be able to predict the movement endpoint based on (early) kinematic marker positions, as no corrections occur late in the movement. Accurate predictions are reflected by high R 2 values. On the other hand, if aiming movements are strongly modified based on online feedback during the homing-in phase, movement endpoints are more difficult to predict from (early) kinematic marker positions. These types of movements are typically associated with low R 2 values. Results of this additional R 2 analysis showed that the percentage of explained endpoint variance in the SPEED condition exceeded 94.0 % in both groups when movement endpoints were estimated based on the peak velocity position, whereas this value exceeded 99.0 % when the estimation was based on peak deceleration position. This analysis thus confirms that SPEED condition aiming movements were primarily based on movement-planning capacities, as originally intended.

  2. Again, two complementary analyses were performed to control these outcomes. First, we investigated whether the traditional age-related changes in movement kinematics were still apparent in the ACCURACY condition. Results showed that the relative duration of the homing-in phase and the number of corrective submovements did no longer significantly differ between young and older adults [both t(21) < 1.40; both p > .09], thereby supporting the notion that young changed their aiming kinematics towards those of older adults in the ACCURACY condition. Second, to further investigate the aspect of slowing in older adults, we calculated the mean peak velocity values of all CONTROL condition aiming blocks relative to the participant’s highest peak velocity value in the SPEED condition. The rationale was that if older adults slow down their aiming movements to a greater extent than young adults, they should systematically demonstrate lower relative peak velocity values. In contrast to absolute peak velocity values, such analysis takes into account personal capacities as well. Results showed that under natural circumstances, older adults (14.1 ± 2.2 %) indeed aimed at a lower percentage of their maximal movement speed compared to young adults [21.4 ± 3.0 %; t(21) = 3.40; p < .01], thereby further supporting the play-it-safe strategy in older age.

References

  • Boisgontier MP, Olivier I, Chenu O, Nougier V (2012) Presbypropria: the effects of physiological ageing on proprioceptive control. Age 34:1179–1194. doi:10.1007/s11357-011-9300-y

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Boisgontier MP, Nougier V (2013) Ageing of internal models: from a continuous to an intermittent proprioceptive control of movement. Age 35:1339–1355. doi:10.1007/s11357-012-9436-4

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Boisgontier MP, Wittenberg GF, Fujiyama H, Levin O, Swinnen SP (2014) Complexity of central processing in simple and choice multilimb reaction-time tasks. PLoS One. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0090457

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Boisseau E, Scherzer P, Cohen H (2002) Eye-hand coordination in aging and in Parkinson’s disease. Aging Neuropsychol Cogn 9:266–275. doi:10.1076/Anec.9.4.266.8769

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaput S, Proteau L (1996) Aging and motor control. J Gerontol B Psychol 51:346–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christou EA, Carlton LG (2001) Old adults exhibit greater motor output variability than young adults only during rapid discrete isometric contractions. J Gerontol A Biol 56:524–532

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coats RO, Wann JP (2011) The reliance on visual feedback control by older adults is highlighted in tasks requiring precise endpoint placement and precision grip. Exp Brain Res 214:139–150. doi:10.1007/s00221-011-2813-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Elliott D, Hansen S, Grierson LE, Lyons J, Bennett SJ, Hayes SJ (2010) Goal-directed aiming: two components but multiple processes. Psychol Bull 136:1023–1044. doi:10.1037/a0020958

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Elliott D, Hansen S, Mendoza J, Tremblay L (2004) Learning to optimize speed, accuracy, and energy expenditure: a framework for understanding speed-accuracy relations in goal-directed aiming. J Motor Behav 36:339–351. doi:10.3200/JMBR.36.3.339-351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engelbrecht SE, Berthier NE, O’Sullivan LP (2003) The undershoot bias: learning to act optimally under uncertainty. Psychol Sci 14:257–261

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Falkenstein M, Yordanova J, Kolev V (2006) Effects of aging on slowing of motor-response generation. Int J Psychophysiol 59:22–29. doi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2005.08.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR (1975) “Mini-mental state”. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 12:189–198

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Galganski ME, Fuglevand AJ, Enoka RM (1993) Reduced control of motor output in a human hand muscle of elderly subjects during submaximal contractions. J Neurophysiol 69:2108–2115

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen S, Glazebrook CM, Anson JG, Weeks DJ, Elliott D (2006) The influence of advance information about target location and visual feedback on movement planning and execution. Can J Exp Psychol 60:200–208. doi:10.1037/cjep2006019

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Heath M (2005) Role of limb and target vision in the online control of memory-guided reaches. Mot Control 9:281–311

    Google Scholar 

  • Helsen WF, Elliott D, Starkes JL, Ricker KL (1998) Temporal and spatial coupling of point of gaze and hand movements in aiming. J Mot Behav 30:249–259. doi:10.1080/00222899809601340

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hinder MR, Fujiyama H, Summers JJ (2012) Premotor-motor interhemispheric inhibition is released during movement initiation in older but not young adults. PLoS One. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0052573

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ketcham CJ, Seidler RD, Van Gemmert AW, Stelmach GE (2002) Age-related kinematic differences as influenced by task difficulty, target size, and movement amplitude. J Gerontol B Psychol 57:54–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kimura J (2001) Electrodiagnosis in diseases of nerve and muscle: principles and practice. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Khan MA et al (2006) Inferring online and offline processing of visual feedback in target-directed movements from kinematic data. Neurosci Biobehav R 30:1106–1121. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2006.05.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khan MA, Franks IM, Goodman D (1998) The effect of practice on the control of rapid aiming movements: evidence for an independency between programming and feedback processing. Q J Exp Psychol 51:425–444. doi:10.1080/713755756

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathiowetz V, Volland G, Kashman N, Weber K (1985) Adult norms for the box and block test of manual dexterity. Am J Occup Ther 39:386–391

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Messier J, Kalaska JF (1999) Comparison of variability of initial kinematics and endpoints of reaching movements. Exp Brain Res 25:139–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oldfield RC (1971) The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia 9:97–113

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Oxford Grice K, Vogel KA, Le V, Mitchell A, Muniz S, Vollmer MA (2003) Adult norms for a commercially available Nine Hole Peg Test for finger dexterity. Am J Occup Ther 57:570–573

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pohl PS, Winstein CJ (1998) Age-related effects on temporal strategies to speed motor performance. J Aging Phys Act 6:45–61

    Google Scholar 

  • Poston B, Van Gemmert AW, Barduson B, Stelmach GE (2009) Movement structure in young and elderly adults during goal-directed movements of the left and right arm. Brain Cogn 69:30–38. doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2008.05.002

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pratt J, Chasteen AL, Abrams RA (1994) Rapid aimed limb movements: age differences and practice effects in component submovements. Psychol Aging 9:325–334

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rey-Robert B, Temprado JJ, Lemaire P, Berton E (2012) Combining movement kinematics, efficiency functions, and Brinley plots to study age-related slowing of sensorimotor processes: insights from Fitts’ task. Gerontology 58:171–180. doi:10.1159/000329347

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Saunders JA, Knill DC (2003) Humans use continuous visual feedback from the hand to control fast reaching movements. Exp Brain Res 152:341–352. doi:10.1007/s00221-003-1525-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt RA, Zelaznik H, Hawkins B, Frank JS, Quinn JT (1979) Motor-output variability: a theory for the accuracy of rapid motor acts. Psychol Rev 47:415–451

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Seidler-Dobrin RD, Stelmach GE (1998) Persistence in visual feedback control by the elderly. Exp Brain Res 119:467–474. doi:10.1007/S002210050362

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Temprado JJ, Sleimen-Malkoun R, Lemaire P, Rey-Robert B, Retornaz F, Berton E (2013) Aging of sensorimotor processes: a systematic study in Fitts’ task. Exp Brain Res 228:105–116. doi:10.1007/s00221-013-3542-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Van Halewyck F, Lavrysen A, Levin O, Boisgontier MP, Elliott D, Helsen WF (2014a) Both age and physical activity level impact on eye-hand coordination. Hum Mov Sci 36:80–96. doi:10.1016/j.humov.2014.05.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Van Halewyck F, Lavrysen A, Levin O, Elliott D, Helsen WF (2014b) The impact of age and physical activity level on manual aiming performance. J Aging Phys Act. doi:10.1123/japa.2013-0104

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Walker N, Philbin DA, Fisk AD (1997) Age-related differences in movement control: adjusting submovement structure to optimize performance. J Gerontol B Psychol 52:40–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welsh TN, Higgins L, Elliott D (2007) Are there age-related differences in learning to optimize speed, accuracy, and energy expenditure? Hum Mov Sci 26:892–912. doi:10.1016/j.humov.2007.04.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Woodworth RS (1899) The accuracy of voluntary movement. Psychol Rev 3:1–119

    Google Scholar 

  • Yan JH, Thomas JR, Stelmach GE (1998) Aging and rapid aiming arm movement control. Exp Brain Res 24:155–168

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Yordanova J, Kolev V, Hohnsbein J, Falkenstein M (2004) Sensorimotor slowing with ageing is mediated by a functional dysregulation of motor-generation processes: evidence from high-resolution event-related potentials. Brain 127:351–362. doi:10.1093/brain/awh042

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Werner F. Helsen and Florian Van Halewyck would like to acknowledge the KU Leuven Research Council for financially supporting this research project. Matthieu P. Boisgontier is supported by a research Grant (1504015N) and a post-doctoral fellowship of the Research Foundation—Flanders (FWO). The authors also wish to thank Ig. Marc Beirinckx and Ig. Paul Meugens for providing invaluable guidance in designing the research equipment.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Movement Control and Neuroplasticity Research Group, Department of Kinesiology, KU Leuven, Tervuursevest 101, 3001, Louvain, Belgium

    Florian Van Halewyck, Ann Lavrysen, Oron Levin, Matthieu P. Boisgontier & Werner F. Helsen

  2. Research Institute for Sport and Exercise Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University, Tom Reilly Building, Byrom Street, Liverpool, L3 3AF, UK

    Digby Elliott

Authors
  1. Florian Van Halewyck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ann Lavrysen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Oron Levin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Matthieu P. Boisgontier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Digby Elliott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Werner F. Helsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Werner F. Helsen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Van Halewyck, F., Lavrysen, A., Levin, O. et al. Factors underlying age-related changes in discrete aiming. Exp Brain Res 233, 1733–1744 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-015-4247-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-015-4247-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation