Top

Gepubliceerd in:

14-06-2024 | Review

Working memory involvement in action planning does not include timing initiation structure

Auteurs: Stuart T. Klapp, Dana Maslovat

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 5/2024

Abstract

A fundamental limitation in the type of information that can be retained in working memory is identified in this theoretical / review article. The analysis is based on studies of skilled motor performance that were not initially conceived in terms of working memory. Findings from a long history of experimentation involving reaction time (RT) prior to making a brief motor response indicate that although the parameters representing the goal to be achieved by the response can be retained in working memory, the control code that implements timing of action components cannot. This lack of working memory requires that the “timing code” must be compiled immediately prior to the moment that it is to be utilized; it is not possible to be fully ready to respond earlier. This compiling process increases RT and may also underlie both the psychological refractory period effect and the difficulty of generating concurrent motor actions with independent timing. These conclusions extend, but do not conflict with, other models of working memory.

volgende artikel Interaction of motor practice and memory training in expressive piano performance: expanding the possibilities of improvisation

The duration of speech for words may increase when there are more syllables per word even though syllables are internal to the elements for which onsets are timed. Although this increase in duration of the action elements has little, if any, influence on RT it can have other consequences. An example is the “word length effect” in which the number of words that can be recalled in a memory span test is reduced for words that take longer to pronounce. It is questionable whether the span of immediate recall represents working memory (Klapp et al., 1983).

A similar relation was reported by Maslovat et al. (2014, Experiment 2) in which RT increased with the number of key presses when the number was precued (i.e., simple RT) but not when there was no precue (i.e., choice RT). The interval between the participant’s presses was longer in the no-precue condition than in the precue condition. Participants in the no-precue condition may select only the first press (which would be needed regardless of the number of presses eventually required). If it turns out that a second press is required, additional processing occurs, during the interval between taps, thereby lengthening the inter-tap interval without influencing RT. An analogous interpretation seems to fit a surprising finding for task switching. The RT becomes shorter rather than longer when the task is switched (Brown & Koch, 2023). After a task switch participants may postpone some processing to occur during the action rather during RT. This interpretation is consistent with the result that a task shift caused the first action element to be executed more slowly.

Magnuson et al. (2008) reported results that also fit predictions of the Two-Phase Model. Study time increased as a function of the number of elements (presumably due to response selection) and RT also increased with number of elements (presumably due to compiling the timing code).

Alouche et al. (2012) blocked 1 press versus 4 press. The procedure can be regarded as random because the sequence of finger actions in the 4-press condition was randomized.

Alouche, S. R., Sant’Anna, G. N., Biagioni, G., & Ribeiro-do-Valle, L. E. (2012). Influence of cueing on the preparation and execution of untrained and trained complex motor responses. Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research, 45(5), 425–435.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Aycock, J. (2003). A brief history of just-in-time. ACM Computing Surveys, 35(2), 97–113.CrossRef

Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In G. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 8). Academic.

Block, R. A., & Zakay, D. (1996). Models of psychological time revisited. In H. Helfrich (Ed.), Time and mind (pp. 171–195). Eogrefe and Huber.

Bortoletto, M., Cook, A., & Cunnington, R. (2011). Motor timing and the preparation for sequential actions. Brain and Cognition, 75(2), 196–204.CrossRefPubMed

Breska, A., & Ivry, R. B. (2016). Taxonomies of timing: Where does the Cerebellum Fit in? Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 8, 282–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2016.02.034CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Brown, R. M., & Koch, I. (2023). Repetition costs in sequence chunking. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-023-02338-7CrossRef

Carlsen, A. N., & Maslovat, D. (2019). Startle and the StartReact Effect: Physiological mechanisms. Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology, 36(6), 452–459. https://doi.org/10.1097/WNP.0000000000000582CrossRefPubMed

Carlsen, A. N., Maslovat, D., & Franks, I. M. (2012). Preparation for voluntary movement in healthy and clinical populations: Evidence from startle. Clinical Neurophysiology, 123(1), 21–33.CrossRefPubMed

Churchland, M. M. (2006). Neural variability in Premotor Cortex provides a signature of Motor Preparation. Journal of Neuroscience, 26(14), 3697–3712. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.3762-05.2006CrossRefPubMed

Churchland, M. M., Cunningham, J. P., Kaufman, M. T., Ryu, S. I., & Shenoy, K. V. (2010). Cortical preparatory activity: Representation of movement or first cog in a dynamical machine? Neuron, 68(3), 387–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2010.09.015CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Cowan, N. (2017). The many faces of working memory and short-term storage. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24(4), 1158–1170. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1191-6CrossRef

Cui, S. Z., Li, E. Z., Zang, Y. F., Weng, X. C., Ivry, R., & Wang, J. J. (2000). Both sides of human cerebellum involved in preparation and execution of sequential movements. Neuroreport, 11(17), 3849–3853.CrossRefPubMed

Fitts, P. M., & Seeger, C. M. (1953). S-R compatibility: Spatial characteristics of stimulus and response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46(3), 199–210.CrossRefPubMed

Franz, E. A., Eliassen, J. C., Ivry, R. B., & Gazzaniga, M. S. (1996). Dissociation of spatial and temporal coupling in the Bimanual movements of Callosotomy patients. Psychological Science, 7(5), 306–310.CrossRef

Haque, Z. Z., Samandra, R., & Mansouri, F. A. (2021). Neural substrate and underlying mechanisms of working memory: Insights from brain stimulation studies. Journal of Neurophysiology, 125(6), 2038–2053. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00041.2021CrossRefPubMed

Henry, F., & Rogers, D. (1960). Increased response latency for complicated movements and a memory drum theory of neuromotor reaction. Research Quarterly of the American Association for Health Physical Education and Recreation, 31(3), 448–458.CrossRef

Hick, W. E. (1952). On the rate of gain of information. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 4, 11–26.CrossRef

Hillman, H., Botthof, T., Forrence, A. D., & McDougle, S. D. (2024). Dissociable codes in Motor Working Memory. Psychological Science, 09567976231221756. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976231221756

Hommel, B. (2004). Event files: Feature binding in and across perception and action. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(11), 494–500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2004.08.007CrossRefPubMed

Ivry, R. B., & Hazeltine, E. (1999). Subcortical locus of temporal coupling in the bimanual movements of a callosotomy patient. Human Movement Science, 18, 345–375.CrossRef

Ivry, R. B., & Keele, S. W. (1989). Timing functions of the cerebellum. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 1(2), 136–152.CrossRefPubMed

Jagacinski, R. J., Marshburn, E., Klapp, S. T., & Jones, M. R. (1988). Tests of parallel versus integrated structure in polyrhythmic tapping. Journal of Motor Behavior, 20(4), 416–442.CrossRefPubMed

James, W. (1890). Principles of psychology. Holt.

Keele, S. W. (1968). Movement control in skilled motor performance. Psychological Bulletin, 70, 387–403.CrossRef

Ketelaars, M. A. C., Khan, M. A., & Franks, I. M. (1999). Dual-task interference as an indicator of on-line programming in simple movement sequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 1302–1315. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.25.5.1302CrossRef

Khalighinejad, N., Schurger, A., Desantis, A., Zmigrod, L., & Haggard, P. (2018). Precursor processes of human self-initiated action. Neuroimage, 165, 35–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.09.057CrossRefPubMed

Khan, M. A., Lawrence, G., Buckolz, E., & Franks, I. (2006). Programming strategies for rapid aiming movements under simple and choice reaction time conditions. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59(3), 524–542. https://doi.org/10.1080/02724980443000809CrossRefPubMed

Khan, M. A., Mourton, S., Buckolz, E., & Franks, I. (2008). The influence of advance information on the response complexity effect in manual aiming movements. Acta Psychologica, 127(1), 154–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2007.04.001CrossRefPubMed

Khan, M. A., Kurniawan, A., Khan, M. E., Khan, M. C., Smith, K. L., Benson, S., Carlsen, S., A. N., & Lawrence, G. P. (2023). The influence of foreperiod duration on the preparation and control of sequential aiming movements. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology (2006), 17470218231162617. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218231162617

Klapp, S. T. (2003). Reaction time analysis of two types of motor preparation for speech articulation: Action as a sequence of chunks. Journal of Motor Behavior, 35(2), 135–150.CrossRefPubMed

Klapp, S. T., & Jagacinski, R. J. (2011). Gestalt principles in the control of motor action. Psychological Bulletin, 137(3), 443–462.CrossRefPubMed

Klapp, S. T., & Maslovat, D. (2020). Preparation of action timing cannot be completed until immediately prior to initiation of the response to be controlled. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 27(5), 821–832. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-020-01740-9CrossRefPubMed

Klapp, S. T., Marshburn, E. A., & Lester, P. T. (1983). Short term memory does not involve the working memory of information processing: The demise of a common assumption. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 112, 240–264.CrossRef

Klapp, S. T., Nelson, J. M., & Jagacinski, R. J. (1998). Can people tap concurrent bimanual rhythms independently? Journal of Motor Behavior, 30(4), 301–322.CrossRefPubMed

Klapp, S. T., Maslovat, D., & Jagacinski, R. J. (2019). The bottleneck of the psychological refractory period effect involves timing of response initiation rather than response selection. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 26(1), 29–47. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-018-1498-6CrossRef

Logie, R. H., & Cowan, N. (2015). Perspectives on working memory: Introduction to the special issue. Memory & Cognition, 43(3), 315–324. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-015-0510-xCrossRef

Lu, X., & Ashe, J. (2005). Anticipatory activity in primary motor cortex codes memorized movement sequences. Neuron, 45(6), 967–973. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2005.01.036CrossRefPubMed

Magnuson, C. E., Robin, D. A., & Wright, D. L. (2008). Motor programming when sequencing multiple elements of the same duration. Journal of Motor Behavior, 40(6), 532–544.CrossRefPubMed

Maslovat, D., & Klapp, S. T. (2024). Trouble doing two differently timed actions at once: What is the problem? Psychological Review, 131(1), 231–246. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000383CrossRefPubMed

Maslovat, D., Chua, R., Spencer, H. C., Forgaard, C. J., Carlsen, A. N., & Franks, I. M. (2013). Evidence for a response preparation bottleneck during dual-task performance: Effect of a startling acoustic stimulus on the psychological refractory period. Acta Psychologica, 144(3), 481–487.CrossRefPubMed

Maslovat, D., Klapp, S. T., Jagacinski, R. J., & Franks, I. M. (2014). Control of response timing occurs during the simple reaction time interval but on-line for choice reaction time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40(5), 2005–2021.PubMed

Maslovat, D., Chua, R., Carlsen, A. N., May, C., Forgaard, C. J., & Franks, I. M. (2015). A startling acoustic stimulus interferes with upcoming motor preparation: Evidence for a startle refractory period. Acta Psychologica, 158, 36–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2015.04.003CrossRefPubMed

Maslovat, D., Chua, R., Klapp, S. T., & Franks, I. M. (2016). Independent planning of timing and sequencing for complex motor movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42, 1158–1172. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000220CrossRefPubMed

Maslovat, D., Chua, R., Klapp, S. T., & Franks, I. M. (2018). Preparation of timing structure involves two independent sub-processes. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 82, 981–996. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-017-0877-3CrossRefPubMed

Maslovat, D., Klapp, S. T., Forgaard, C. J., Chua, R., & Franks, I. M. (2019). The effect of response complexity on simple reaction time occurs even with a highly predictable imperative stimulus. Neuroscience Letters, 704, 62–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2019.03.056CrossRefPubMed

McCann, R. S., & Johnston, J. C. (1992). Locus of the single-channel bottleneck in dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40, 2005–2021.

Newell, A., & Simon, H. (1956). The logic theory machine–A complex information processing system. IRE Transactions on Information Theory, 2(3), 61–79. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIT.1956.1056797CrossRef

Pashler, H. (1993). Doing two things at the same time. American Scientist, 81, 48–55.

Pashler, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: Data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116(2), 220–244.CrossRefPubMed

Peters, M. (1977). Simultaneous performance of two motor activities: The factor of timing. Neuropsychologia, 15(3), 461–465. https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(77)90099-9CrossRefPubMed

Ricker, K. L., Elliott, D., Lyons, J., Gauldie, D., Chua, R., & Byblow, W. (1999). The utilization of visual information in the control of rapid sequential aiming movements. Acta Psychologica, 103(1–2), 103–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0001-6918(99)00026-8CrossRefPubMed

Riehle, A., & Requin, J. (1989). Monkey primary motor and premotor cortex: Single-cell activity related to prior information about direction and extent of an intended movement. Journal of Neurophysiology, 61(3), 534–549. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.1989.61.3.534CrossRefPubMed

Rosenbaum, D. A. (1980). Human movement initiation: Specification of arm, direction, and extent. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 109(4), 444–474.CrossRefPubMed

Rothwell, J., Antal, A., Burke, D., Carlsen, A., Georgiev, D., Jahanshahi, M., Sternad, D., Valls-Solé, J., & Ziemann, U. (2021). Central nervous system physiology. Clinical Neurophysiology, 132(12), 3043–3083. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2021.09.013CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Scimeca, J. M., Kiyonaga, A., & D’Esposito, M. (2018). Reaffirming the sensory recruitment account of Working Memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(3), 190–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2017.12.007CrossRefPubMed

Shen, M., Gao, Z., Ding, X., Zhou, B., & Huang, X. (2014). Holding biological motion information in working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40(4), 1332–1345. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036839CrossRefPubMed

Shin, Y. K., & Proctor, R. W. (2018). Evidence for distinct steps in response preparation from a delayed response paradigm. Acta Psychologica, 191, 42–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2018.08.010CrossRefPubMed

Smith, M. C. (1967). Theories of the psychological refractory period. Psychological Bulletin, 67, 202–221.CrossRefPubMed

Spencer, R. M., Zelaznik, H. N., Diedrichsen, J., & Ivry, R. B. (2003). Disrupted timing of discontinuous but not continuous movements by cerebellar lesions. Science, 300(5624), 1437–1439. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1083661CrossRefPubMed

Sternberg, S., Monsell, S., Knoll, R. L., & Wright, C. E. (1978). The latency and duration of rapid movement sequences: Comparisons of speech and typewriting. In G. E. Stelmach (Ed.), Information processing in motor control and learning (pp. 117–152). Academic.

Tanji, J., & Evarts, E. V. (1976). Anticipatory activity of motor cortex neurons in relation to direction of an intended movement. Journal of Neurophysiology, 39(5), 1062–1068. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.1976.39.5.1062CrossRefPubMed

Tuller, B., & Kelso, J. A. (1989). Environmentally-specified patterns of movement coordination in normal and split-brain subjects. Experimental Brain Research, 75(2), 306–316. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00247936CrossRefPubMed

Welford, A. T. (1952). The psychological refractory period and the timing of high speed performance—A review and theory. British Journal of Psychology, 43, 2–19.

Wood, J. N. (2007). Visual working memory for observed actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(4), 639–652. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.136.4.639CrossRefPubMed

Zylberberg, J., & Strowbridge, B. W. (2017). Mechanisms of persistent activity in cortical circuits: Possible neural substrates for working memory. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 40, 603–627. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-neuro-070815-014006CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Titel: Working memory involvement in action planning does not include timing initiation structure
Auteurs: Stuart T. Klapp
Dana Maslovat
Publicatiedatum: 14-06-2024
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 5/2024
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-024-01986-1

Andere artikelen Uitgave 5/2024

The relationships between urbanicity, general cognitive ability, and susceptibility to the Ebbinghaus illusion

Research

Simultaneous but independent spatial associations for pitch and loudness

Open Access
Research

Retrieving autobiographical memories in autobiographical contexts: are age-related differences in narrated episodic specificity present outside of the laboratory?

Research

The effect of typicality training on costly safety behavior generalization

Open Access
Research

Music in the eye of the beholder: a pupillometric study on preferred background music, attentional state, and arousal

Open Access
Research

Grasping tiny objects

Open Access
Research