Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
It is beyond controversy that in bimanual coordination tasks, parameter planning related to the movements of one hand influences the planning and execution of movements simultaneously performed with the other hand. A well-researched example of such bimanual interference is the finding that reaction times tend to be longer when preparing bimanual pointing movements with different amplitudes than for equal amplitude movements. Interestingly, these reaction time costs were found to increase when movement targets were cued symbolically (e.g., using letters) as compared to spatially. Therefore, it was suggested that interference may be primarily related to cue translation and response selection processes rather than resulting from cross-talk at the motor programming level. Here, we argue that spatial interference effects do not necessarily depend on the type of cues used but instead depend on the general task demands (difficulty). In two experiments we show that bimanual interference effects can (1) be abolished in symbolic cueing conditions when highly compatible cues placing minimal demands on response selection processes are used and (2) occur in direct/spatial cueing conditions when a secondary cognitively demanding, but movement-unrelated task is performed. Thus, our findings suggest that whether or not interference effects emerge during movement planning depends on the overall task difficulty and hence the resources available during movement preparation.
Albert, N. B., Weigelt, M., Hazeltine, E., & Ivry, R. B. (2007). Target selection during bimanual reaching to direct cues is unaffected by the perceptual similarity of the targets. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33(5), 1107–1116. PubMed
Diedrichsen, J., Ivry, R. B., Hazeltine, E., Kennerley, S., & Cohen, A. (2003). Bimanual interference associated with the selection of target locations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29(1), 64–77. PubMed
Enns, J. T., & Liu, G. (2009). Attentional limits and freedom in visually guided action. Progress in Brain Research, 176(Chapter 12), 183–194.
Franz, E. A. (1997). Spatial coupling in the coordination of complex actions. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A, 50(3), 684–704. CrossRef
Franz, V. H. (2004). The optotrak toolbox. http://www.allpsych.uni-giessen.de/vf/OptotrakToolbox/. Retrieved 15 Apr 2010.
Hazeltine, E., Diedrichsen, J., Kennerley, S. W., & Ivry, R. B. (2003). Bimanual cross-talk during reaching movements is primarily related to response selection, not the specification of motor parameters. Psychological Research, 67(1), 56–70. PubMed
Heuer, H. (1986). Intermanual interactions during programming of aimed movements: converging evidence on common and specific parameters of control. Psychological Research, 48(1), 37–46. CrossRef
Hommel, B. (1997). Toward an action-concept model of stimulus–response compatibility. Advances in Psychology, 118, 281–320. CrossRef
Kelso, J. A. S., Southard, D. L., & Goodman, D. (1979). On the coordination of two-handed movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 5(2), 229. PubMed
Kleiner, M. (2010). Visual stimulus timing precision in Psychtoolbox-3: tests, pitfalls and solutions (meeting abstract). Perception, 39, 189.
Marteniuk, R., MacKenzie, C., & Baba, D. (1984). Bimanual movement control: information processing and interaction effects. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 36(2), 335–365. CrossRef
Neumann, O. (1990). Visual attention and action. In O. Neumann & W. Prinz (Eds.), Relationships between perception and action: current approaches (pp. 227–267). Berlin: Springer. CrossRef
Norman, J. (2002). Two visual systems and two theories of perception: an attempt to reconcile the constructivist and ecological approaches. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25, 73–144. PubMed
Prinz, W. (1990). A common coding approach to perception and action. In O. Neumann & W. Prinz (Eds.), Relationships between perception and action: current approaches (pp. 167–201). Berlin: Springer. CrossRef
Schmidt, R. A. (1975). A schema theory of discrete motor skill learning. Psychological Review, 82(4), 225–260. CrossRef
Similä, S. S., & McIntosh, R. D. (2015). Look where you’re going! Perceptual attention constrains the online guidance of action. Vision Research, 110, 179–189. CrossRef
Spijkers, W., & Heuer, H. (1995). Structural constraints on the performance of symmetrical bimanual movements with different amplitudes. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48(3), 716–740. CrossRef
Spijkers, W., Heuer, H., Kleinsorge, T., & van der Loo, H. (1997). Preparation of bimanual movements with same and different amplitudes: specification interference as revealed by reaction time. Acta Psychologica, 96(3), 207–227. CrossRef
Spijkers, W., Heuer, H., Steglich, C., & Kleinsorge, T. (2000). Specification of movement amplitudes for the left and right hands: evidence for transient parametric coupling from overlapping-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26(3), 1091–1105. PubMed
Swinnen, S. P., & Walter, C. B. (1991). Toward a movement dynamics perspective on dual-task performance. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 33(4), 367–387.
van Sonderen, J. F., & van der Gon, J. J. D. (1991). Reaction-time-dependent differences in the initial movement direction of fast goal-directed arm movements. Human Movement Science, 10, 713–726. CrossRef
- Increased cognitive demands boost the spatial interference effect in bimanual pointing
Stefanie C. Biehl
- Springer Berlin Heidelberg