Consistent with action–based theories of attention, the presence of a nontarget stimulus in the environment has been shown to alter the characteristics of goal–directed movements. Specifically, it has been reported that movement trajectories veer away from (Howard & Tipper, 1997) or towards (Welsh, Elliott, & Weeks, 1999) the location of a nontarget stimulus. The purpose of the experiments reported in this paper was to test a response activation model of selective reaching conceived to account for these variable results. In agreement with the model, the trajectory changes in the movements appear to be determined by the activation levels of each competing response at the moment of response initiation. The results of the present work, as well as those of previous studies, are discussed within the framework of the model of response activation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BerlucchiG., HeronW., HymanG., RizzolattiG., & UmiltàC. (1971). Simple reaction times of ipsilateral and contralateral hand to lateralized visual stimuli.Brain, 94, 419–430.
2.
BrydenM. P. (1977). Measuring handedness with questionnaires.Neuropsychologia, 15, 617–624.
3.
ChuaR., & ElliottD. (1993). Visual regulation of manual aiming.Human Movement Science, 12, 365–401.
4.
ColesM. G., GrattonG., BashoreT. R., EriksenC. W., & DonchinE. (1985). A psychophysiological investigation of the continuous flow model of human informational processing.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11, 529–553.
5.
ElliottD., HelsenW. F., & ChuaR. (2001). A century later: Woodworth's (1899) two-component model of goal-directed aiming.Psychological Bulletin, 127, 342–357.
6.
ElliottD., RoyE. A., GoodmanD., CarsonR. G., ChuaR., & MarajB. K. V. (1993). Asymmetries in the preparation and control of manual aiming movements.Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47, 570–589.
7.
EriksenB.A., & EriksenC.W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in an on-search task.Perception and Psychophysics, 16, 143–146.
8.
FindlayJ. M. (1982). Global visual processing for saccadic eye movements.Vision Research, 22, 1033–1045.
9.
FiskJ. D., & GoodaleM. A. (1985). The organization of eye and limb movements during unrestricted reaching to targets in contralateral and ipsilateral visual space.Experimental Brain Research, 60, 159–178.
10.
FittsP. M., & PetersonJ. R. (1964). Information capacity of discrete motor responses.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67, 103–112.
11.
GeorgeopoulosA. P. (1990). Neurophysiology of reaching. In JeannerodM. (Ed.), Attention and performance XIII (pp. 227–263). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
12.
GeorgeopoulosA. P. (1995). Current issues in directional motor control.Trends in Neurosciences, 18, 506–510.
13.
HeathM., HodgesN. J., ChuaR., & ElliottD. (1998). On-line control of rapid aiming movements: Unexpected target perturbations and movement kinematics.Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 52, 163–173.
14.
HickW. E. (1952). On the rate of gain of information.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 4, 11–26.
15.
HikosakaO., & WurtzR. H. (1989). The basal ganglia. In WurtzR.H., & GoldbergM. E. (Eds.), The neurobiology of saccadic eye movements: Reviews of oculomotor research (Vol. 3, pp. 257–281). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
16.
HoughtonG., & TipperS. P. (1994). A model of inhibitory mechanisms in selective attention. In DagenbachD., & CarrT.H. (Eds.), Inhibitory processes in attention, memory, and language (pp. 53–112). San Diego: Academic Press.
17.
HoughtonG., & TipperS. P. (1999). Attention and the control of action: An investigation of the effects of selection on population coding of hand and eye movement. In HeinkeD., HumphreysG. W., & OlsenA. (Eds.), Connectionist models in cognitive neuroscience (Proceedings of the 5th neural computational and psychological workshop).New York: Springer-Verlag.
18.
HowardL. A., LupiáñezJ., & TipperS. P. (1999). Inhibition of return in a selective reaching task: An investigation of reference frames.Journal of General Psychology, 126, 421–442.
19.
HowardL. A., & TipperS. P. (1997). Hand deviations away from visual cues: Indirect evidence for inhibition.Experimental Brain Research, 113, 144–152.
20.
KalaskaJ.F., ScottS.H., CisekP., & SergioL.E. (1997). Cortical control of reaching movements.Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 7, 849–859.
21.
KleinR. M. (2000). Inhibition of return.Trends in Cognitive Science, 4, 138–147.
22.
LyonsJ., ElliottD., RickerK. L., WeeksD. J., & ChuaR. (1999). Action-centred attention in virtual environments.Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53, 176–187.
23.
McGarryT., & FranksI. M. (1997). A horse race between independent processes: Evidence for a phantom point of no return in the preparation of a speeded response.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23, 1533–1542.
24.
MeeganD. V., & TipperS. P. (1998). Reaching into cluttered environments: Spatial and temporal influences of distracting objects.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 51A, 225–249.
25.
MichaelsC. F. (1988). Stimulus-response compatibility between response position and discrimination of apparent motion: Evidence of the detection of affordances.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 231–240.
26.
MilgramP. (1987). A spectacle-mounted liquid-crystal tachistoscope.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 19, 449–456.
27.
Mon-WilliamsM., TresilianJ. R., CoppardV.L., & CarsonR.G. (2001). The effect of obstacle position on reach-to-grasp movements.Experimental Brain Research, 137, 497–501.
28.
PoffenbergerA. T. (1912). Reaction time to retinal stimulation with special reference to the time lost in conduction through nerve centers.Archives of Psychology, 23, 1–73.
29.
PosnerM.I., & CohenY. (1984). Components of visual orienting. In BoumaH., & BouwhuisD.G. (Eds.), Attention and performance X (pp. 531–556). Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Ltd.
30.
RizzolattiG., RiggioL., & SheligaB. M. (1994). Space and selective attention. In UmiltàC., & MoscovitchM. (Eds.), Attention and performance XV (pp. 231–265). Cambridge: MIT Press.
31.
SheligaB. M., RiggioL., & RizzolattiG. (1994). Orienting of attention and eye movements.Experimental Brain Research, 98, 507–522.
TipperS. P., HowardL. A., & HoughtonG. (1999). Behavioral consequences of selection form neural population codes. In MonsellS., & DriverJ. (Eds.), Attention and performance XVIII (pp. 223–245). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
34.
TipperS. P., HowardL. A., & JacksonS. R. (1997). Selective reaching to grasp: Evidence for distractor interference effects.Visual Cognition, 4, 1–38.
35.
TipperS. P., LortieC., & BaylisG.C. (1992). Selective reaching: Evidence for action-centred attention.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 891–905.
36.
TresilianJ.R. (1998). Attention in action or obstruction of movement? A kinematic analysis of avoidance behavior in prehension.Experimental Brain Research, 120, 352–368.
37.
TresilianJ. R. (1999). Selective attention in reaching: When is an object not a distractor?Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3, 407–408.
38.
TuckerM., & EllisR. (1998). On the relations between seen objects and components of potential actions.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 830–846.
39.
WeirP. L., WeeksD. J., WelshT. N., ElliottD., ChuaR., RoyE. A., & LyonsJ. (2003). Action-centred distractor effects in discrete control selection.Experimental Brain Research, 149, 207–213.
40.
WelshT. N. (2002). The influence of response priming, competition, and inhibition on movement trajectories. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, McMaster University, Canada.
41.
WelshT. N., & ElliottD. (in press). The effects of response priming and inhibition on movement planning and execution.Journal of Motor Behavior.
42.
WelshT. N., & ElliottD. (2003). The effects of response priming on movement planning and execution in cluttered environments. Manuscript submitted for publication.
43.
WelshT. N., ElliottD., & WeeksD. J. (1999). Hand deviations toward distractors: Evidence for response competition.Experimental Brain Research, 127, 207–212.
