Parallel regulation of past, present, and future actions during sequencing.

Behmer, Lawrence P.; Jantzen, Kelly J.; Martinez, Sarah L.; Walls, Rachel; Amir-Brownstein, Elisabeth; Jaye, Andrew; Leytze, Mckaila; Lucier, Kathleen; Crump, Matthew J. C.

doi:10.1037/xhp0000507

Cited by 5 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Here the neural activation pattern for each sequence segment is weighted according to its temporal position in the sequence [6,7]. A rich literature indirectly supporting CQ in sequence control stems from observations of serial recall including transposition of neighbouring items and items occupying the same position in different chunks [6,8,9], and excitability of forthcoming items during sequence production [10]. Moreover, the CQ account has also been substantiated directly at the neurophysiological level in the context of well-trained finger sequences [11,12], saccades [13] and drawing geometrical shapes [14].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Competitive state of movements during planning predicts sequence performance

Mantziara

Ivanov

Houghton

et al. 2021

Journal of Neurophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Humans can learn and produce skilled movement sequences from memory, yet the nature of sequence planning is not well understood. Previous computational and neurophysiological work suggests that movements in a sequence are planned as parallel graded activations and selected for output through competition. However, the relevance of this planning patterns to sequence production fluency and accuracy, as opposed to the temporal structure of sequences, is unclear. To resolve this question, we assessed the relative availability of constituent movements behaviourally during the preparation of motor sequences from memory. In three separate multi-session experiments, healthy participants were trained to retrieve and produce 4-element finger press sequences with particular timing according to an abstract sequence cue. We evaluated reaction time (RT) and error rate as markers of movement availability to constituent movement probes. Our results demonstrate that longer preparation time produces more pronounced differences in availability between adjacent sequence elements, whilst no effect was found for sequence speed or temporal grouping. Further, participants with larger position-dependent differences in movement availability tended to initiate correct sequences faster and with a higher temporal accuracy. Our results suggest that competitive pre-activation during sequence planning is established gradually during sequence planning and predicts sequence skill, rather than the temporal structure of the motor sequence.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Competitive state of movements during planning predicts sequence performance

Mantziara

Ivanov

Houghton

et al. 2021

Journal of Neurophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This pattern is clearly inconsistent with a serial model that does not predict an effect on execution. Previous electrophysiological studies, taking advantage of motor evoked potentials, showed that, at the onset of typing, motor information on hand alternation is detected only for the first part of the string (Behmer et al, 2018; Scaltritti et al, 2018). In line with serial models, Behmer et al (2018) proposed that all keystroke identities are processed and activated in parallel before typing execution.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Previous electrophysiological studies, taking advantage of motor evoked potentials, showed that, at the onset of typing, motor information on hand alternation is detected only for the first part of the string (Behmer et al, 2018; Scaltritti et al, 2018). In line with serial models, Behmer et al (2018) proposed that all keystroke identities are processed and activated in parallel before typing execution. Later, during execution, the actual keystrokes inhibited the following ones according to a graduated activation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The interaction of central and peripheral processes in typing and handwriting: A direct comparison.

Cerni¹,

Job²

2022

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to investigate the interaction between linguistic and peripheral-motor processes in written production. Past research has focused on this topic by analyzing how handwriting and, more recently, typing execution were influenced by lexical and sublexical variables. We took a step further in this study by directly comparing handwriting and typing, examining if different motor executions allow for different flows of linguistic processing. Participants typed and handwrote a set of Italian stimuli in which we manipulated lexicality (words vs. pseudowords), orthographic complexity (stimuli with vs. without multiletter graphemes), and length (short vs. long stimuli). We measured and analyzed latency (response times [RTs]), the difference between RTs and the acoustic duration (AD) of the stimuli (RT-AD), mean length of interletter intervals (ILIs), and whole response duration (WRD). We further explored the effects of the position of the orthographic complexity on RTs, RT-AD, ILIs, and WRD. Results suggested a cascaded, continuous processing flow for handwriting and a mixed mechanism involving both serial and parallel modes of processing for typing. The differences in linguistic processing during handwriting and typing suggest different mechanisms in segmenting, maintaining, and retrieving the orthographic representation during motor execution. Public Significance StatementThis study suggests that handwriting and typing allow for different processing of linguistic information during their execution. Linguistic information, such as length, orthographic complexity, and lexicality, affect handwriting movements. During typing, the length of the stimulus has a strong influence, while most of the lexicality and orthographic complexity processing is moved up at the beginning of the stimulus execution (before typing starts and during first key presses). The differences in linguistic processing during handwriting and typing production suggest differences in preparing and maintaining in memory the to-be-written sequence.

show abstract

“…Recent experimental evidence suggested that decision making arises from a continuous flow of information from the perceptual system to the motor system, leading to the build-up of evidence for one alternative along the system (e.g., Donner et al 2009), which makes it plausible to find response competition up to the motor system (Calderon, Gevers, & Verguts, 2018). Previous studies have described inhibition at the level of an effector, using TMS (Burle et al 2002;Duque et al 2010;; for typing see Behmer et al 2018). Interestingly, inhibition seemed restricted to relevant effectors, i.e., those involved in the block/task (Labruna et al, 2014).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They showed that the neurophysiological signature associated with response selection is modulated by item position within the upcoming sequence (close vs. distant). Consistently, Behmer et al (2018) used trans-cranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to show a gradient of activation of motor cortex that corresponded to the graded position of future keystrokes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tracking Keystroke Sequences at the Cortical Level Reveals the Dynamics of Serial Order Production

Pinet

Dell

Alario

2019

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Response selection is often studied by examining single responses, although most actions are performed within an overarching sequence. Understanding processes that order and execute items in a sequence is thus essential to give a complete picture of response selection. In this study, we investigate response selection by comparing single responses and response sequences as well as unimanual and bimanual sequences. We recorded EEG while participants were typing one- or two-keystroke sequences. Irrespective of stimulus modality (visual or auditory), response-locked analysis revealed distinct contralateral and ipsilateral components previously associated with activation and inhibition of alternative responses. Unimanual sequences exhibited a similar activation/inhibition pattern as single responses, but with the activation component of the pattern expressed more strongly, reflecting the fact that the hand will be used for two strokes. In contrast, bimanual sequences were associated with successive activation of each of the corresponding motor cortices controlling each keystroke and no traceable inhibitory component. In short, the activation component of the two-keystroke sequence EEG pattern can be understood from the addition of activation components of single-stroke sequences; the inhibition of the hand not being used is only evidenced when that hand is not planned for the next stroke.

show abstract

Parallel regulation of past, present, and future actions during sequencing.

Cited by 5 publications

References 16 publications

Competitive state of movements during planning predicts sequence performance

Competitive state of movements during planning predicts sequence performance

The interaction of central and peripheral processes in typing and handwriting: A direct comparison.

Tracking Keystroke Sequences at the Cortical Level Reveals the Dynamics of Serial Order Production

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About