Reaction time to kinesthetic stimulation resulting from sudden arm displacement.

Chernikoff, Rube; Taylor, Franklin V.

doi:10.1037/h0056952

Cited by 89 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although this question was motivated in part because of a desire to make the results from studies of statistical facilitation more generalizable, another reason for its inclusion here was that kinesthetic stimuli usually have much faster (perhaps 80 msec faster) RTs than do auditory stimuli (Chernikoff & Taylor, 1952). This difference seems to be too large to be accounted for by the hypothesis that the kinesthetic stimuli were subjectively more intense than the auditory stimuli, and occurs even when the kinesthetic stimuli appear quite weak.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 79%

On the nature of intersensory facilitation of reaction time

Gielen

Schmidt²,

Heuvel

1983

Perception & Psychophysics

156

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments examined the RT to visual stimuli presented alone and when either auditory (Experiment 1) or kinesthetic (Experiment 2) stimuli followed the visual event by 50 or 65 msec, respectively. As has been found before, the RT to combined stimulus events was 20 to 40 msec shorter than to visual events alone. While such results have generally been interpreted to mean that two sensory modalities are interacting, Raab's (1962) hypothesis of statistical facilitationthat the subject responds to that stimulus modality whose processing is completed first-is also possible. Using Raab's model, but with relaxed assumptions, the present experiments show that RT to combined stimulus events is more rapid than can be accounted for by statistical facilitation. Therefore, some intersensory interaction was probably occurring. The nature of these possible interactions and the status of the statistical-facilitation hypothesis are discussed.161

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 79%

On the nature of intersensory facilitation of reaction time

Gielen

Schmidt²,

Heuvel

1983

Perception & Psychophysics

156

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Either stage could be aVected by immersion, but we believe that the observed changes are mainly due to degraded proprioception. First, changes were negligible during the initial 100 ms of each response, that is, before proprioception may became eVective (ChernikoV and Taylor 1952;Higgins and Angel 1970). Second, previous work has already documented that proprioceptive signals are degraded by immersion: subjects' performance in an elbow-angle matching task deteriorated when one arm was immersed in water (Bock 1994).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…For data analysis, an interactive computer algorithm parameterized subjects' responses as • Initial Force: response magnitude in task J 100 ms after response onset, before proprioceptive feedback may become eVective (ChernikoV and Taylor 1952;Higgins and Angel 1970) • Peak Force: absolute maximum force in task J • Time to Peak Force: interval between response onset and maximum force in task J • End Force: magnitude of force 30 ms before the "release" command, which was presented 2 s after target onset in task J • Reaction Time J: interval between target appearance and force onset in task J • Reaction Time R: interval between target onset and release of central key in task R.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Production of finely graded forces in humans: effects of simulated weightlessness by water immersion

Dalecki

Dräger²,

Mierau

et al. 2012

Exp Brain Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We have shown before that subjects exposed to a changed gravitoinertial environment produce exaggerated manual forces. From the observed pattern of findings, we argued that initial forces were exaggerated because of abnormal vestibular activity and peak forces because of degraded proprioceptive feedback. If so, only peak but not initial forces should be affected by water immersion, an environment that influences proprioceptive feedback but not vestibular activity. The present study was undertaken to scrutinize this prediction. Twelve subjects sat in a chair once immersed in water and once on dry land, while producing pre-trained isometric forces with a joystick. In a control experiment, subjects performed a four-choice reaction-time task. During the joystick task, produced initial forces were comparable in water and on land, while peak (+24%) and end forces (+22%) were significantly higher in water, as was their reaction time (+6%). During the control task, reaction time was comparable in water and on land. Our findings corroborate the above notion that initial forces increase when the vestibular system is stimulated (gravitoinertial change, visual field motion, but not water immersion), while peak forces increase when proprioceptive feedback is degraded (probably all three scenarios) and are not corrected until response end. Our findings further confirm the absence of cognitive slowing in simple-choice reaction tasks under shallow-water immersion conditions.

show abstract

“…Hence they should cease firing about 40-50 msec after the silent period begins (Renshaw, 1941(Renshaw, , 1946. When the motoneurones are released from Renshaw feed-back, they become more responsive to any form of excitation, including 'voluntary' impulses from the brain, which should continue to arrive for some time after the spindles have ceased firing (Chernikoff & Taylor, 1952). Hence, the second volley could be explained by the termination of negative feed-back from the Renshaw cells.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Motor activity following the silent period in human muscle

Alston¹,

Angel²,

Fink³

et al. 1967

The Journal of Physiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

4. The action potentials were significantly larger during the terminal volley than during the period before unloading.5. When acceleration of the limb was reduced by increasing the inertia, the terminal volley was decreased in size, but the latency was not affected.6. When movement was interrupted by a mechanical block, the latency of the terminal volley was reduced, but the size was not affected.7. The results suggest that the terminal motor volley is not the result of a decrease in Renshaw feed-back or in autogenetic inhibition.8. The motor volley must be regulated by proprioceptive feed-back, because it is affected by the velocity and displacement of the limb.9. The muscle frequently responded within 20 msec after motion of the limb was blocked. Hence it appears that the mechanism involves a spinal reflex.10. Because the motor discharge occurs while the muscle is shortening, it cannot be an ordinary stretch reflex. If the discharge is attributed to

show abstract

Reaction time to kinesthetic stimulation resulting from sudden arm displacement.

Cited by 89 publications

References 7 publications

On the nature of intersensory facilitation of reaction time

On the nature of intersensory facilitation of reaction time

Production of finely graded forces in humans: effects of simulated weightlessness by water immersion

Motor activity following the silent period in human muscle

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About