Motor Behavior: Programming, Control, and Acquisition

227 Pages·1985·7.481 MB·English

by  D. A. Rosenbaum (auth.), Professor Dr. Herbert Heuer, Professor Dr. Uwe Kleinbeck, Dipl.-Psych. Klaus-Helmut Schmidt (eds.)

Motor Behavior
Programming, Control, and Acquisition
Edited by
H. Heuer, U. Kleinbeck
and K.-H. Schmidt
With Contributions by
J. Annett, W. D. A. Beggs, C. H. M. Brunia
S. A. V. M. Haagh, P. A. Hancock, C. I. Howarth
B. J. Leikind, K. M. Newell, D. A. Rosenbaum
J. G. M. Scheirs, R. A. Schmidt, D. E. Sherwood
H. N.~elazrrilk·
With 80 Figures
Springer-Verlag
Berlin Heidelberg New York Tokyo
Professor Dr. HERBERT HEUER
Abteilung flir Psychologie der Universitat Bielefeld,
Postfach 86 40, 4800 Bielefeld, FRO
Professor Dr. UWE KLEINBECK
Bergische Universitat-Oesamthochschule Wuppertal,
Fach Psychologie, OauBstraBe 20,
5600 Wuppertal, FRO
Dipl.-Psych. KLAUS-HELMUT SCHMIDT
Institut flir Arbeitsphysiologie an der Universitat Dortmund,
ArdeystraBe 67,
4600 Dortmund, FRO
ISBN -13 :978-3-642-69751-7 e-ISBN -13 :978-3-642-69749-4
DOl: 10.1007/978-3-642-69749-4
library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data. Main entry under title: Motor
behavior. Bibliography: p. Includes indexes. 1. Motor ability. 2. Perceptual-motor
processes. 3. Self-control. 4. Movement, Psychology of. I. Heuer, H.(Herbert), 1948- .
II. Kleinbeck, Uwe. III. Schmidt, K.-H. (Klaus-Helmut), 1952- . IV. Annett, John.
BF295.M65 1985 152.3 85-12672
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifically those of translation, reprinting, re-use of illustra
tions, broadcasting, reproduction by photocopying machine or similar means, and
storage in data banks.
Under § 54 of the German Copyright Law where copies are made for other than private
use a fee is payable to "Verwertungsgesellschaft Wort", Munich.
© by Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1985
Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1st edition 1985
The use of registered names, trademarks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in
the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant pro
tective laws and regulations and therefore for general use.
Product liability. The publisher can give no guarantee for information about drug
dosage and application thereof contained in this book. In every individual case the
respective user must check its accuracy by consulting other pharmaceutical literature.
2126/3130-543210
Preface
In recent years there has been steadily increasing interest in motor
behavior and a growing awareness that a person not only has to
know what to do in a particular situation, but also how to do it. The
question of how actions are performed is of central concern in the
area of motor control. This volume provides an advanced-level
treatment of some of the main issues.
Experiments concerned with basic processes of motor control typ
ically examine very simple movements. At first glance these tasks
appear to be far removed from real-world tasks, but it should be
kept in mind that they are not studied for their own sake. One of the
main reasons for using them is the well-recognized, but sometimes
questioned, scientific principle that basic laws may be discovered
more easily in simple situations than iIi complex situations. Another
reason is that the simple tasks studied constitute building blocks of
more complex tasks. For example, some complex skills can be consid
ered as consisting of sequences of aimed movements, although, as
no one would doubt, knowing everything about these individual
movements does not mean knowing everything about, for example,
typing.
The first two chapters of the present volume focus on behavioral
and physiological studies of programming and preparation of move
ments. In the first chapter D. Rosenbaum introduces the concept of
a motor program that is set up in advance of the overt movement.
He then discusses the major questions that arise with respect to such
programs and the current answers based on behavioral data. Final
ly, he sets forth a general framework for conceptualizing the pro
gramming of movements.
A quite different approach to the preparatory processes that pre
cede execution of a movement is presented in the chapter by C. H.
M. Brunia, S. A. V. M. Haagh, and J. G. M. Scheirs. By means of
physiological recording techniques it is possible to trace preparatory
processes at the cortical and spinal levels. One of the main questions
addressed is the role of different brain structures in motor prepara
tion. To the extent that functions of different brain structures are
known, this approach also helps to answer questions about which
functions are involved in preparing a movement. One of the challeng
ing tasks of the future is to tie together the two different approaches
VI Preface
to motor preparation that are represented by these first two chap
ters.
Chapters 3 to 5 focus on the control of movements, in particular
on the control of aiming movements. A common theme is the rela
tionship between speed and accuracy. R. A. Schmidt, D. E. Sher
wood, H. N. Zelaznik, and B. J. Leikind begin this section with an
open-loop interpretation of this relationship based on the concept of
a generalized motor program. At least in very fast movements, con
siderable support can be found for the underlying principles of this
theory, but the authors also discuss the difficulties and unsolved
problems.
c.1.
Howarth and W. D. A. Beggs approach the relationship be
tween speed and accuracy from a quite different viewpoint, focussing
on movements in which there is sufficient time for closed-loop con
trol. Accuracy of movement is related to temporal delays in the pro
cessing of visual feedback and to the inaccuracy of spatial informa
tion. Although the open-loop and closed-loop approaches to the
problem of speed-accuracy tradeoff might appear to be contradicto
ry, they are certainly not; they concentrate on different relevant as
pects. It should in principle be possible to unifY the two theories, al
though this has not yet been done. It is by now widely recognized
that closed-loop control and open-loop control are not mutually
exclusive, and that the problem is to identifY the principles by which
these two modes of control can be combined.
While the first two chapters on the control of movements elabo
rate on particular theories, the next chapter, by P.A. Hancock and
K. M. Newell, takes a more comprehensive, descriptive approach to
the problem of speed and accuracy. From a review of the classical
data a general description of the relationship between speed, ampli
tude, duration, and different measures of error is developed; this is
then extended to temporal accuracy. In the process the shortcomings
of various theories are noted. The general description of spatial and
temporal error functions constitutes a challenge for any comprehen
sive theory of the control of aiming movements.
The final chapter of the book focusses on long-term changes in
motor control. J. Annett explicitly omits traditional topics in the
area of motor learning and concentrates instead on the current ma
jor problems which link this area to other fields of experimental psy
chology. First, he elaborates on the fact that motor learning is not a
problem at the periphery of psychology, but rather is strongly de
pendent on various purely mental processes like imagery and verbal
coding. This view challenges the classical view that cognitive proces
ses are important only in the first stages of motor learning. In the
second part of the chapter some of the recent ideas on why practice
helps to improve performance are reviewed. The reader may note
Preface VII
. that some of these ideas are in fact new versions of very old ones,
dating back to the turn of the century, a time when the field of
learning was not yet dominated by the notion of reinforcement and
related concepts.
The chapters in this volume were given impetus by the sym
posium "Psychology of Motor Behavior," held in Dortmund in
March 1983. We acknowledge the financial support of the Deutsche
Forschungsgemeinschaft and express our gratitude to the authors
and reviewers.
Bielefeld, Wuppertal, HERBERT HEUER
and Dortmund, 1985 UWE KLEINBECK
KLA US-HELMUT SCHMIDT
Contents
Motor Programming: A Review and Scheduling Theory
D.A. ROSENBAUM. (With 7 Figures) ........ .-
Waiting to Respond: Electrophysiological Measurements
in Man During Preparation for a Voluntary Movement
C. H. M. BRUNIA, S. A. V. M. HAAGH, and J. G. M. SCHEIRS
(With 20 Figures) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35
Speed-Accuracy Trade-offs in Motor Behavior:
Theories ofImpulse Variability
R.A. SCHMIDT, D.E. SHERWOOD, H.N. ZELAZNIK,
and B.J. LEIKIND. (With 24 Figures) ..... . 79
The Control of Simple Movements by Multisensory
Information
C.1. HOWARTH and W.D.A. BEGGS. (With 10 Figures) 125
The Movement Speed-Accuracy Relationship in Space-Time
P.A. HANCOCK and K.M. NEWELL. (With 15 Figures) 153
Motor Learning: A Review
J. ANNETT. (With 4 Figures) 189
Author Index 213
Subject Index 221
List of Contributors
J. ANNETT, Department of Psychology, University of. Warwick,
Coventry CV4 7 AL, United Kingdom
W.D.A. BEGGS, Department of Psychology, University of Notting
ham, Nottingham NG7 2RD, United Kingdom
C. H. M. BRUNIA, Department of Psychology, Physiological Psy
chology Section, Tilburg University, 5000 LE Tilburg, The
Netherlands
S. A. V. M. lIAAGH, Department of Psychology, Physiological Psy
chology Section, Tilburg University, 5000 LE Tilburg, The
Netherlands
P.A. HANCOCK, Department of Safety Science, Institute of Safety
and Systems Management, University of Southern California,
Los Angeles, CA 90089, USA
c.1.
HOWARTH, Department of Psychology, University of Notting
ham, Nottingham NG7 2RD, United Kingdom
B. J. LEIKlND, Department of Physics, University of California, Los
Angeles, CA 90024, USA
K. M. NEWELL, Motor Behavior Laboratory, University of Illinois
at Urbana-Champaign, IL 61820, USA
D.A. ROSENBAUM, School of Communications and Cognitive
Science, Hampshire College, Amherst, MA 01002, USA
J. G. M. SCHEIRS, Department of Psychology, Physiological Psy
chology Section, Tilburg University, 5000 LE Tilburg, The
Netherlands
R A. SCHMIDT, Motor Control Laboratory, Department of Kine
siology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90024, USA
D. E. SHERWOOD, Motor Control Laboratory, Department of Kine
siology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90024, USA
H.N. ZELAZNIK, Department of Physical Education, Health, and
Recreation Studies, Purdue University, West Lafayette,
IN 47907. USA
Motor Programming:
A Review and Scheduling Theory
D. A. ROSENBAUM
Contents
Introduction ........... . 1
Evidence and Definitions . . . . . . . 3
Independence from Sensory Feedback 3
Anticipatory Effects . . . . . . . 4
Programs Versus Plans . . . . . . 5
Issues in the Study of Motor Programs 6
Structure ....... . 6
Parameters and Units 9
Biomechanical Constraints II
Construction 12
Storage 15
Learning .. 15
Scheduling . . 16
Evidence for Scheduling 16
Abstract Timing Lists 17
Associations Between Pulses and Response Commands 17
Clocks ..... . 19
Scheduling Hierarchies 21
Response TlIOing 21
Errors ..... 25
Concluding Remarks 26
References . . . . 28
Introduction
The problem of the control of action has long occupied the interests of philos
ophers and physiologists. For philosophers, the problem historically has con
cerned the nature of the will: Are people free to choose their own actions? Are
they different from animals in this respect? For physiologists, the problem has
concerned mechanism: How are the neuromuscular activitIes of the body coor
dinated in such a way that skillful, or not such skillful, movements occur?
For psychologists, the problem of action control lies somewhere between
these two. Whenever a "voluntary" movement is produced, there seems to be an
issuance of the will. Although you could at this moment be watching a movie or
riding a bicycle, you have chosen instead, presumably freely, to read this chapter.
At a more mundane level of decision-making you have also decided to assume
2 D.A.Rosenbaum
some posture while reading, tbis chapter, to bring your eyes to where they are at
tbis moment, and so on. For the psychologist, perhaps the most intriguing ques
tion underlying the study of action control is how intentions are translated into
actions. For me personally, one reason why I have chosen to study motor pro
gramming is to gain access to the will itself.
To begin the discussion of motor programming from the standpoint of the
will is, on some investigator's accounts, to place the ghost before the machine.
Why, they would ask, should one impute to the organism something as elusive as
the will in attempting to explain how animals navigate through a well-structured
optical environment, how primates carry out coordinated reaching movements,
how humans move their lips, and so on? The answer depends on what one is try
ing to explain. If one is after a totally mechanistic account of the control of physi
cal behavior, then starting with the will may not be the most desirable starting
point. As Turvey and others have argued (Kelso, Tuller, and Harris 1983; Pew
1984; Turvey 1977), in starting "intentionally" one runs the risk of placing too
much theoretical baggage in the mind, where it is relatively inaccessible, and not
enough in the peripheral motor system, where direct observation and tests of
known mechanical laws are more easily acbieved.
Tbis is a sensible approach to science. One would like whenever possible to
be able to explain things in terms that are familiar and well established, leaving
only those things that cannot be explained to new domains of discovery. Plainly,
if the knee jerk can be understood in terms of identifiable myoelectric circuits,
then little is gained, and indeed sometbing may be lost, by bringing in unneeded
intentions.
Why then should one take as one's object of study the question of how in
tentions are translated into actions, that being the question at the heart of the
study of motor programming? For me there are two principal answers. One is
that a commonsense view of the production of movement must assume that ex
cept for "reflex" motions such as the knee jerk, actions begin with some decision
about what is to be achieved. How else could one explain the enormous range of
actions and qualities of performance that occur in the same stimulus conditions?
The other reason for acknowledging the importance of intentions is that con
structs such as plans and intentions no longer have the questionable epistem
ological status they did before the emergence of cognitive psychology. It is
now clear that people engage in covert mental activity that allows for the con
structive elaboration of experience, both past and future. To deny the reality of
such activity in the domain of motor performance would be to backtrack signifi
cantly in our investigation of the control of behavior (Powers 1973). By the same
token, granting the reality and importance of intention leads one to reject the
idea that intention can merely be regarded as what is left over after biomechani
cal analyses have explained all they can.
In this chapter I review the evidence that has led to the postulation of motor
programs. Then I tum to the major questions that have occupied and continue to
occupy students of motor programming. In the final portions of the chapter I in
troduce a theoretical framework for studying motor programming, considering