Misperceiving the speed-accuracy tradeoff: imagined movements and perceptual decisions

Abstract

Research has suggested that prospective motor decisions are consistent with actual motor action. In a study that we recently published (Young et al. in Exp Brain Res 185:681-688, 2008), however, participants demonstrated a preference for closer targets that was inconsistent with the predictions of Fitts's law. With a pair of experiments, the present paper investigates the underlying basis of this non-optimal behaviour. Participants showed a similar deviation from Fitts's law when imagining movements--believing that movement duration increased with distance within the same index of difficulty. Participants did not behave similarly, however, in a perceptual version of the decision task. These results suggest that imagined movements and motor decisions are linked, as well as demonstrating one situation in which both show a similar deviation from the patterns of actual movement duration.

The preference of probability over negative values in action selection

“…Their results showed that participants reported that they could move in a shorter amount of time to a closer and narrower target than a further and wider target (Young et al, 2008(Young et al, , 2009a. This pattern of preferences held for imagined movements as well (Young et al, 2009a).…”

“…The use of the Both Pairs with similar MEG values configurations in the current experiment was similar to the methodologies used by Young et al (2008Young et al ( , 2009a, who presented participants with targets with similar predicted MTs (by varying target width and movement amplitude) according to Fitts's Law (Fitts, 1954). Their results showed that participants reported that they could move in a shorter amount of time to a closer and narrower target than a further and wider target (Young et al, 2008(Young et al, , 2009a.…”

3D associative symbol array as component of user interface

“…In this way, brain can estimate the position of symbol cell ahead of opening the symbol board, even if appropriate visual and audible symbols are not yet presented. Such a design is in compliance with a claim, that if we can execute some action in short time mentally, also physical execution of the action is then fast [2]. Each of the chapters dealing with different associative array types contains also a description of these logical principles.…”

Effect of Visual Field Presentation on Action Planning (Estimating Reach) In Children

“…Although more recent work indicates that there are real task-and imagery task-specific brain functions (Ueno, Inoue, Matsuoka, Abe, & Maeda, 2010), research has shown that motor imagery elicits corticomotor excitability associated with action (Neuper, Scherer, & Pfurtscheller, 2005;Stinear, Byblow, Steyvers, Levin, & Swinnen, 2006;Takahashi et al, 2005). Furthermore, evidence has been reported showing that motor imagery follows the basic tenets of Fitts's Law (Choudhury et al, 2007;Solodkin, Hlustik, Chen, & Small, 2004;Stevens, 2005;Young et al, 2009). That is, simulated movement duration similar to actual movement decreases with increasing task complexity.…”

“…Underscoring much of the discussion associated with the role of motor imagery in action processing is the equivalence hypothesis (e.g., Jeannerod, 2001)-suggesting that motor simulation and motor control processes are functionally equivalent (Kunz, Creem-Regehr, & Thompson, 2009;Lorey et al, 2010;Munzert et al, 2009;Ramsey, Cummings, Eastough, & Edwards, 2010). For example, several studies report a high correlation between real and simulated movements (e.g., Heremans, Helsen, & Feys, 2007;Nikulin, Hohlefled, Jacobs, & Curio, 2007;Sharma, Jones, Carpenter, & Baron, 2008;Young, Pratt, & Chau, 2009). Although more recent work indicates that there are real task-and imagery task-specific brain functions (Ueno, Inoue, Matsuoka, Abe, & Maeda, 2010), research has shown that motor imagery elicits corticomotor excitability associated with action (Neuper, Scherer, & Pfurtscheller, 2005;Stinear, Byblow, Steyvers, Levin, & Swinnen, 2006;Takahashi et al, 2005).…”