Examining the effect of state anxiety on compensatory and strategic adjustments in the planning of goal-directed aiming

Abstract

The anxiety-perceptual-motor performance relationship may be enriched by investigations involving discrete manual responses due to the definitive demarcation of planning and control processes, which comprise the early and late portions of movement, respectively. To further examine the explanatory power of self-focus and distraction theories, we explored the potential of anxiety causing changes to movement planning that accommodate for anticipated negative effects in online control. As a result, we posed two hypotheses where anxiety causes performers to initially undershoot the target and enable more time to use visual feedback ("play-it-safe"), or fire a ballistic reach to cover a greater distance without later undertaking online control ("go-for-it"). Participants were tasked with an upper-limb movement to a single target under counter-balanced instructions to execute fast and accurate responses (low/normal anxiety) with non-contingent negative performance feedback (high anxiety). The results indicated that the previously identified negative impact of anxiety in online control was replicated. While anxiety caused a longer displacement to reach peak velocity and greater tendency to overshoot the target, there appeared to be no shift in the attempts to utilise online visual feedback. Thus, the tendency to initially overshoot may manifest from an inefficient auxiliary procedure that manages to uphold overall movement time and response accuracy.

The multiple process model of goal-directed aiming/reaching: insights on limb control from various special populations

“…This strategy will also reduce the magnitude of any corrections that need to be made. In this paper and elsewhere (e.g., Roberts et al 2018), we often refer to strategic undershooting as a "play-it-safe strategy". Although it may literally be the case if one is working with a circular saw or reaching for a full glass of beer (i.e., to avoid a spill), more broadly "play-it-safe" means avoiding a worst-case outcome in terms of movement time and energy expenditure.…”

Sequential aiming in pairs: the multiple levels of joint action

“…This interpretation coincides with reduced spatial variability (for similar findings within a reaching and grasping task, see Sacheli et al 2013 ) despite there being a higher magnitude of peak velocity (see Meyer et al 1988 ; Schmidt et al 1979 ). Thus, it is possible that performers altered their pre-response planning by keeping the spatial variability of the initial movement comparatively low to minimise the need for online control later within the movement (Allsop et al 2017 ; Roberts et al 2018 ), while limiting the negative effects on endpoint accuracy and precision (Khan et al 2002 ; see also, Fischman and Reeve 1992 ). Indeed, pre-response planning usually entails the optimal selection or parameterization of movement that most likely limits the inherent sources of variability (Hamilton and Wolpert 2002 ; Hamilton et al 2004 ; Harris and Wolpert 1998 ; see also, van Beers 2009 ).…”

Energy minimization within target-directed aiming: the mediating influence of the number of movements and target size

“…Thus, performers can positively avoid this unfavourable situation by initially undershooting the target and correcting the movement in a direction that is consistent with the primary submovement. While an undershoot error still requires a secondary submovement correction, it is deemed to be optimal given this form of correction (re-acceleration/discontinuities) takes less time and energy compared to the type of correction (reversal) required following an overshoot (for time minimization effects following undershoots vs. overshoots; see Elliott et al 2004;Roberts et al 2018).…”