Representational Models and Nonlinear Dynamics: Irreconcilable Approaches to Human Movement Timing and Coordination or Two Sides of the Same Coin? Introduction to the Special Issue on Movement Timing and Coordination

Krampe, Ralf; Engbert, Ralf; Kliegl, Reinhold

doi:10.1006/brcg.2001.1300

Cited by 16 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…On the contrary, these notions are central to two distinct theoretical camps (the information processing perspective and dynamical system approach, respectively) that have little interaction ([27]; and see e.g., the special issue of Brain & Cognition 48 , 2002). The notion of a time keeper (or central timer) became firmly established by the well-known two-level timing model [28],[29].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Distinct Timing Mechanisms Produce Discrete and Continuous Movements

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The differentiation of discrete and continuous movement is one of the pillars of motor behavior classification. Discrete movements have a definite beginning and end, whereas continuous movements do not have such discriminable end points. In the past decade there has been vigorous debate whether this classification implies different control processes. This debate up until the present has been empirically based. Here, we present an unambiguous non-empirical classification based on theorems in dynamical system theory that sets discrete and continuous movements apart. Through computational simulations of representative modes of each class and topological analysis of the flow in state space, we show that distinct control mechanisms underwrite discrete and fast rhythmic movements. In particular, we demonstrate that discrete movements require a time keeper while fast rhythmic movements do not. We validate our computational findings experimentally using a behavioral paradigm in which human participants performed finger flexion-extension movements at various movement paces and under different instructions. Our results demonstrate that the human motor system employs different timing control mechanisms (presumably via differential recruitment of neural subsystems) to accomplish varying behavioral functions such as speed constraints.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Distinct Timing Mechanisms Produce Discrete and Continuous Movements

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The strongest support for the putative two-stage process comes from studies demonstrating that the variance associated with the central timing mechanism increased systematically with longer interval durations while motor delay variances remained constant across target intervals (Wing, 1980;Wing & Kristofferson, 1973a, 1973b. The two-level model has generally received support from studies in which participants repeatedly tapped out a certain target interval with a single finger or foot (e.g., Keele & Hawkins, 1982;Keele, Pokorny, Corcos, & Ivry, 1985), and it has since been extended in several ways (Krampe, Engbert, & Kliegl, 2002;Krampe, Kliegl, Mayr, Engbert, & Vorberg, 2000;Vorberg & Wing, 1996).…”

Section: Low-level Timingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Timing, Sequencing, and Executive Control in Repetitive Movement Production.

Krampe¹,

Mayr²,

Kliegl³

2005

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The authors demonstrate that the timing and sequencing of target durations require low-level timing and executive control. Sixteen young (M-sub(age) = 19 years) and 16 older (M-sub(age) = 70 years) adults participated in 2 experiments. In Experiment 1, individual mean-variance functions for low-level timing (isochronous tapping) and the sequencing of multiple targets (rhythm production) revealed (a) a dissociation of low-level timing and sequencing in both age groups, (b) negligible age differences for low-level timing, and (c) large age differences for sequencing. Experiment 2 supported the distinction between low-level timing and executive functions: Selection against a dominant rhythm and switching between rhythms impaired performances in both age groups and induced pronounced perseveration of the dominant pattern in older adults.

show abstract

“…external focus of these approaches has led to debate concerning the relationship between self-other entrainment and co-representation and their underling mechanisms (Pressing 1999;Krampe et al 2002;Knoblich and Sebanz 2008;Kaplan and Bechtel 2011;Schmidt et al 2011;Stepp et al 2011;Coey et al 2012;Colling and Williamson 2014;Cummins 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neural alpha oscillations index the balance between self-other integration and segregation in real-time joint action

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Shared knowledge and interpersonal coordination are prerequisites for most forms of social behavior. Influential approaches to joint action have conceptualized these capacities in relation to the separate constructs of co-representation (knowledge) and self-other entrainment (coordination). Here we investigated how brain mechanisms involved in co-representation and entrainment interact to support joint action. To do so, we used a musical joint action paradigm to show that the neural mechanisms underlying co-representation and self-other entrainment are linked via a process - indexed by EEG alpha oscillations - regulating the balance between self-other integration and segregation in real time. Pairs of pianists performed short musical items while action familiarity and interpersonal (behavioral) synchronization accuracy were manipulated in a factorial design. Action familiarity referred to whether or not pianists had rehearsed the musical material performed by the other beforehand. Interpersonal synchronization was manipulated via congruent or incongruent tempo change instructions that biased performance timing towards the impending, new tempo. It was observed that, when pianists were familiar with each other's parts, millisecond variations in interpersonal synchronized behavior were associated with a modulation of alpha power over right centro-parietal scalp regions. Specifically, high behavioral entrainment was associated with self-other integration, as indexed by alpha suppression. Conversely, low behavioral entrainment encouraged reliance on internal knowledge and thus led to self-other segregation, indexed by alpha enhancement. These findings suggest that alpha oscillations index the processing of information about self and other depending on the compatibility of internal knowledge and external (environmental) events at finely resolved timescales.

show abstract

Representational Models and Nonlinear Dynamics: Irreconcilable Approaches to Human Movement Timing and Coordination or Two Sides of the Same Coin? Introduction to the Special Issue on Movement Timing and Coordination

Cited by 16 publications

References 36 publications

Distinct Timing Mechanisms Produce Discrete and Continuous Movements

Distinct Timing Mechanisms Produce Discrete and Continuous Movements

Timing, Sequencing, and Executive Control in Repetitive Movement Production.

Neural alpha oscillations index the balance between self-other integration and segregation in real-time joint action

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About