Preselection in short-term motor memory.

Abstract

Recent studies by Jones (1974) have posited that accurate movements in short-term motor memory (STMM) are mediated by the subject's ability to preset effector mechanisms and monitor their efferent output. Three experiments were conducted to examine this hypothesis. Experiment 1 involved comparisons between the reproduction of the end-location and the reproduction of the distance of a preselected movement. The results revealed that preselected location was superior to preselected distance, indicating that the efference attached to movement extent was not primary. Experiment 2 examined whether location cues were primarily encoded independent of the movement presentation mode. The subjects recalled target locations under preselected, constrained, and passive movement conditions. Recall in the preselected condition was superior to that in the constrained and passive conditions, which showed no difference, suggesting that afferent location information per se was not totally responsible for recall accuracy. Experiment 3 examined the processing requirements of preselected, constrained, and passive location information by filling the retention interval with interpolated processing activity. While preselected location was clearly superior, the three conditions were not differentially affected by processing activity. These overall findings were interpreted as contrary to Jones (1974) and pointed to the importance of preselection in short-term motor memory.Recent studies in motor behavior have emphasized the role of peripheral feedback in acquisition and retention processes (Adams, 1971;Stelmach, 1974). Such studies have led to theories in which control is viewed in terms of a comparison process between the feedback of the movement and a stored representation of prior sensory consequences (e.g., Adams, 1971). As such, the central aspects of human motor control have received little attention in spite of the overtures of Lashley (1951) and the known existence of central determinants of behavior in lower phyla (Wilson, 1961).

Presbypropria: the effects of physiological ageing on proprioceptive control

“…Stelmach and Sirica (1986) showed no difference between age groups in passive contralateral concurrent matching for short movements but greater absolute errors in older adults for long movements. These authors explained this discrepancy by the increasing matching error that has been evidenced to occur as a function of movement distance (Pickard et al 2003;Stelmach et al 1975). They also evidenced no difference between young and older adults in active contralateral concurrent matching.…”

Differential use of distance and location information for spatial localization

“…In most of the previous research directly comparing distance and location information, subjects have been required to recall from memory specific features of a previous limb movement (e.g., Stelmach et al, 1975). In the present experiment, we sought to determine whether differences in spatial information about distance and location also exist when subjects are required to reproduce aspects of the motion of a visual stimulus.…”

“…Additional support for a distinction between distance and location information comes from research on the memory for previously produced limb movements. When subjects are asked to reproduce features of a previous movement, they are often better able to reproduce the end location than they are to reproduce the distance of the movement from a new starting position (Kelso, 1977;Marteniuk & Roy, 1972;Stelmach, Kelso, & Wallace, 1975). In addition, memory for the distance and the end location of a previously made movement are subject to different interference and decay effects (Laabs, 1973).…”

The kinaesthetic perception of Euclidean distance: a study of the detour effect

“…In particular, the quest for a clear dissociation between distance and position cues proved elusive, suggesting that these two aspects of the movements are intimately interconnected at the motor planning level ). The few robust results are: 1) short distances are generally overestimated, and long distances are generally underestimated (e.g., Adams and Djikstra 1966;Hall and Wilberg 1977;Keele and Ells 1972;Kelso 1977;but Stelmach 1973), 2) memory traces for distance are more labile than those for position (Laszlo 1992), 3) both distance and position of free active movements are reproduced more accurately than movements to a stop, or passive movements (Roy 1977;1978;Roy and Diewert 1978;Stelmach et al 1975Stelmach et al , 1976, 4) distance-position interference follows a stereotyped pat-tern. In the position task, the end location is undershot when the starting point of the reproduction movement is varied so that the distance to be travelled is longer with respect to the criterion movement, and is overshot when the distance is shorter.…”