Planning and executing simple movements: Contributions of relative-time and overall-duration specification

Journal of Motor Behavior

Volumn 33, Issue 3, 2001, Pages 273-285

  Wright, David L ^a   Black, Charles ^a   Park, Jin Hoon ^a   Shea, Charles H ^a  

^a TEXAS A AND M UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Motor learning; Motor programming; Timing

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LEARNING; LIMB MOVEMENT; MALE; MOTOR CONTROL; MOTOR PERFORMANCE; NORMAL HUMAN; REACTION TIME; TASK PERFORMANCE;

EID: 0034903360     PISSN: 00222895     EISSN: 19401027     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00222890109601913     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Blandin, Y., Lhuisset, L., & Proteau, L. (1999). Cognitive processes underlying observational learning of motor skills. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 52A, 957-979.
2. Donders, F. C. (1969). On the speed of mental processes. In W. G. Koster (Ed. & Trans.), Attention and performance II. Amsterdam: North Holland. (Original work published 1868).
3. Fowler, C. A., & Turvey, M. T. (1978). Skill acquisition: An evenl approach with special reference to searching for the optimum of a function of several variables. In G. E. Stelmach (Ed.), Information processing in motor control and learning (pp. 1-40). New York: Academic Press.
4. Gentner, D. R. (1987). Timing of skilled motor performance: Tests of the proportional duration model. Psychological Review, 94, 255-276.
5. Gentner, D. R. (1988). Observed movements reflect both central and peripheral mechanisms: A reply to Heuer. Psychological Review, 95, 558.
6. Goodman, D., & Kelso, J. A. S. (1980). Are movements prepared in parts? Not under compatible (naturalized) conditions. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 109, 475-495.
7. Henry, F. M., & Rogers, E. E. (1960). Increased response latency tor complicated movements and a "memory drum" theory of neuromotor reaction. Research Quarterly, 31, 448-458.
8. Heuer, H. (1988). Testing the invariance of relative timing: Comments on Gentner (1987). Psychological Review, 95, 552-557.
9. Heuer, H. (1991). Invariant relative timing in motor program theory In J. Fagard & P. H. Wolff (Eds.), The development of timing control and temporal organization in coordinated action (pp 37-68). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
10. Immink, M, & Wright, D. L. (in press). Motor programming during high and low contextual interference practice conditions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance.
11. Keele S. W. (1968). Movement control in skilled motor performance. Psychological Bulletin, 70, 387-403.
12. Kelso, J. A. S. (1981). Contrasting perspectives on order and regulation in movement. In J. Long & A. Baddeley (Eds.), Attention and performance IX (pp. 437-457). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
13. Lai, Q., & Shea, C. H. (1998). Bandwidth knowledge of results enhances generalized motor program learning. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 70, 79-83.
14. Lai, O O & Shea, C. H. (1999). Generalized motor program (GMP) learning: Effects of reduced frequency of KR and practice variability. Journal of Motor Behavior, 30, 51-59.
15. Lai, Q., Shea, C. H., Wulf, G., & Wright, D. L. (2000). Optimizing generalized motor program and parameter learning. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 71, 10-24.
16. Larish, D. D., & Frekany, G. A. (1985). Planning and preparing expected and unexpected movements: Reexamining the relationship of arm, direction, and extent of movement. Journal of Motor Behavior, 17, 168-189.
17. Lee, T D., Elliott, D., & Carnahan, H. (1987). The preparation of actions and parameters of action: A fixed or variable process. Acta Psychologica, 66, 83-102.
18. Quinn J. T., & Sherwood, D. (1983). Time requirements of changes in program and parameter variables in rapid ongoing movements. Journal of Motor Behavior, 15, 163-178.
19. Rosenbaum, D. A. (1980). Human movement initiation: Specification of arm, direction, and extent. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 109, 444-474.
20. Rosenbaum, D. A. (1983). The movement precuing technique: Assumptions, applications, and extensions. In R. A. Magill (Ed.), Memory and control in motor behavior (pp. 231-274). Amsterdam, North-Holland.
21. Rosenbaum, D. A., & Komblum, S. (1982). A priming method for investigating the selection of motor responses. Acta Psychologica, 51, 223-243.
22. Roth, K. (1988). Investigations on the basis of the generalized motor programme hypothesis. In O. J. Meijer & K. Roth (Eds.), Complex movement behaviour: The motor-action controversy (pp. 261-288). Amsterdam, North-Holland.
23. Schmidt, R. A. (1975). A schema theory of discrete motor skill learning. Psychological Review, 82, 225-260.
24. Schmidt, R. A. (1985). The search for invariance in skilled movement behavior. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 56, 188-200.
25. Schneider, W. (1988). Micro-experimental laboratory: An integrated system for IBM-PC compatibles. Behavior Research Methods, Instrumentation, and Computers, 20, 206-217.
26. Schneider, W. (1990). MEL user's guide: Computer techniques for real time experimentation. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychology Software Tools.
27. Shapiro, D. C., & Schmidt, R. A. (1982). The schema theory: Recent evidence and developmental implications. In J. A. S. Kelso & J. E. Clark (Eds.), The development of movement control and co-ordination (pp. 113-150). New York: Wiley.
28. Shea, C. H., Lai, Q., Wright, D. L., Immink, M., & Black, C. (2001). Consistent and variable practice conditions: Effects on generalized motor program and parameter learning. Journal of Motor Behavior, 33, 127-138.
29. Stelmach, G. E., Worringham, C. J., & Strand, E. E. (1986). Movement preparation in Parkinson's disease: The use of advanced information. Brain, 109, 1179-1194.
30. Van Rossum, J. H. A. (1990). Schmidt's schema theory: The empirical base of the variability of practice hypothesis. A critical analysis. Human Movement Science, 9, 387-435.
31. Wright, D. L., & Shea, C. H. (in press). Manipulating generalized motor program difficulty during blocked and random practice does not affect parameter learning. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport.
32. Wulf, G., & Schmidt, R. A. (1989). The learning of generalized motor programs: Reducing the relative frequency of knowledge of results enhances memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 15, 748-757.
33. Wulf, G., Schmidt, R. A., & Deubel, H. (1993). Reduced feedback frequency enhances generalized motor program learning but not parameterization learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 19, 1134-1150.
34. Zelaznik, H. N. (1978). Precuing response factors in choice reaction time: A word of caution. Journal of Motor Behavior, 10, 77-79.
35. Zelaznik, H. N., & Larish, D. (1986). Precuing methods in the study of motor programming. Experimental Brain Research, 15, 55-62.
36. Zelaznik, H. N., Shapiro, D. C., & Carter, M. C. (1982). The specification of digit and duration during motor programming: A new method of precuing. Journal of Motor Behavior, 14, 57-68.