1999
DOI: 10.1080/00222899909601001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Distributed Control in Rapid Sequential Aiming Responses

Abstract: The preparation and on-line control of short, rapid sequential aiming responses were studied in 3 experiments. Participants (N = 12 in Experiments 1 and 2, and 20 in Experiment 3) produced 3-segment responses (a) within self-initiation, simple reaction time (RT), and choice RT paradigms (Experiment 1); (b) without visual feedback under self-initiation conditions (Experiment 2); and (c) with and without visual feedback under simple RT conditions (Experiment 3). In all conditions in which participants initiated … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2001
2001
2013
2013

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 49 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Furthermore, if one of the later elements in a longer sequence deviates from the others in one particular respect (e.g., another force or execution rate), an earlier element is slowed instead of sequence latency (e.g., Piek, Glencross, Barrett, & Love, 1993;Sidaway et al, 1999). And if the sequence is produced at less than maximal rates, there is a smaller sequence-length effect on latency (Canic & Franks, 1989; W. B. Verwey & T. Eikelboom van Donkelaar & Franks, 1991).…”
Section: Teun Elkelboommentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Furthermore, if one of the later elements in a longer sequence deviates from the others in one particular respect (e.g., another force or execution rate), an earlier element is slowed instead of sequence latency (e.g., Piek, Glencross, Barrett, & Love, 1993;Sidaway et al, 1999). And if the sequence is produced at less than maximal rates, there is a smaller sequence-length effect on latency (Canic & Franks, 1989; W. B. Verwey & T. Eikelboom van Donkelaar & Franks, 1991).…”
Section: Teun Elkelboommentioning
confidence: 97%
“…The hypothesis that some phases of the control of movement may extend after movement initiation has received independent support from studies of hand movement sequences (Sidaway et al 1999;Smiley-Oyen and Worringham 1996), finger tapping (Piek et al 1993, Rosenbaum et al 1987), typewriting (Brown and Carr 1989, and handwriting (Hulstijn and van Galen 1983). In particular, Rosenbaum found that the RT to begin a sequence of rapid finger movements decreased with the length of the sequence under some choice conditions.…”
Section: One-target Advantagementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Given that the stimulus to initiate a response is held constant, increases in RT are viewed as reflecting the additional time required to program more complex movements. The direct relation between RT and response programming has been confirmed in non-clinical populations (Sidaway, et al, 1999) and clinical groups including schizophrenics (Carnahan, et al, 1997), Parkinson’s disease patients (Sheridan, et al, 1987), and individuals with autism and Asperger disorder (Rinehart, et al, 2001). …”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 95%