Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Feb;77(2):242-256.
doi: 10.1177/17470218231162617. Epub 2023 Apr 29.

The influence of foreperiod duration on the preparation and control of sequential aiming movements

Michael A Khan  1 , Aryan Kurniawan  2 , Madison Er Khan  3 , Michaela Cm Khan  4 , Kristy L Smith  2 , Sara Scharoun Benson  2 , Anthony N Carlsen  5 , Gavin P Lawrence  6
Affiliations

The influence of foreperiod duration on the preparation and control of sequential aiming movements

Michael A Khan et al. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2024 Feb.

Abstract

Reaction time (RT) and movement times (MTs) to the first target are typically longer for two-target sequential movements compared to one-target movements. While this one-target advantage has been shown to be dependent on the availability of advance information about the numbers of targets, there has been no systematic investigation of how foreperiod duration (i.e., interval between presentation of the target(s) and stimulus) influences the planning and execution of sequential movements. Two experiments were performed to examine how the one-target advantage is influenced by the availability and timing of advance target information. In Experiment 1, participants performed one- and two-target movements in two separate blocks. In Experiment 2, target conditions were randomised from trial to trial. The interval between target(s) appearing and stimulus tone (i.e., foreperiod) was varied randomly (0, 500, 1,000, 1,500, and 2,000 ms). The results of Experiment 1 revealed that while the one-target advantage in RT was not influenced by foreperiod duration, the one-target advantage in MT increased as foreperiod duration increased. The variability of endpoints at the first target was greater in the two- compared to one-target condition. In Experiment 2, the one-target advantage in both RT and MT increased as the length of the foreperiod increased. However, there was no difference in limb trajectory variability between target conditions. The implication of these findings for theories of motor planning and execution of multiple segment movements is discussed.

Keywords: Sequential aiming movements; movement control; movement planning; response complexity.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
The experimental apparatus. Panel A depicts the one-target condition and Panel B the two-target condition.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Mean reaction time as a function of foreperiod for both the one- and two-target conditions. Error bars represent standard deviation. *The post hoc significant differences in the foreperiod main effect. Reaction time was significantly longer in the 0 ms foreperiod compared to all other foreperiod durations, and reaction time was longer in the 500 ms foreperiod duration as compared to 1,500 and 2,000 ms. †The main effect of target condition.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Mean movement time to the first target as a function of foreperiod for both the one- and two-target conditions. Error bars represent standard deviation. *The post hoc significant difference within the Target Condition × Foreperiod interaction; movement time was significantly longer in both the 1,500 and 2,000 ms foreperiods compared to both the 0 and 500 ms foreperiods in the two-target condition. †The main effect of target condition.
Figure 4.
Figure 4.
Mean variability ellipsoid volume at peak velocity to the first target for both the one- (1TEV1) and two-target conditions (2TEV1), and at peak velocity to the second target for the two-target condition (2TEV2). Error bars represent standard deviation.
Figure 5.
Figure 5.
Mean variability ellipse area at the first target for both the one- (1TEA1) and two-target conditions (2TEA1), and at the second target for the two-target condition (2TEA2). Error bars represent standard deviation. *Significant differences in variability ellipse area whereby the variability at peak velocity was significantly smaller for the first segment of the two-target condition compared to one-target condition, and was significantly larger for the second compared to first segment in the two-target condition.
Figure 6.
Figure 6.
Mean reaction time as a function of foreperiod for both the one- and two-target conditions. Error bars represent standard deviation. *Significant target condition difference in reaction time at each foreperiod.
Figure 7.
Figure 7.
Mean movement time to the first target as a function of foreperiod for both the one- and two-target conditions. Error bars represent standard deviation. *Significant target condition difference in movement time at each foreperiod. †Significant movement time differences between foreperiod conditions in the two-target condition. Note the no significant differences between foreperiods for the one-target condition (•).
Figure 8.
Figure 8.
Mean variability ellipsoid volume at peak velocity to the first target for both the one- (1TEV1) and two-target conditions (2TEV1), and at peak velocity to the second target for the two-target condition (2TEV2). Error bars represent standard deviation. *Significant movement segment difference; variability ellipsoid volume at peak velocity was significantly greater for the second compared to first segment.
Figure 9.
Figure 9.
Mean variability ellipse area at the first target for both the one- (1TEA1) and two-target conditions (2TEA1), and at the second target for the two-target condition (2TEA2). Error bars represent standard deviation. *Significant movement segment difference; variability ellipse area was significantly greater for the second compared to first segment.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Adam J. J., Helsen W. F., Elliott D., Beukers M. J. (2001). The one-target advantage on the control of rapid sequential aiming movements: The effect of practice. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 41, 301–313.
    1. Adam J. J., Nieuwenstein J. H., Huys R., Paas F. G. W. C., Kingma H., Willems P., Werry M. (2000). Control of rapid aimed hand movements: The one-target advantage. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26(1), 295–312. 10.1037/0096-1523.26.1.295 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Adam J. J., Paas F. G. W. C. (1996). Dwell time in reciprocal aiming tasks. Human Movement Science, 15, 1–24.
    1. Adam J. J., Paas F. G. W. C., Eyssem I. C. J. M., Slingerland H., Bekkering H., Drost M. R. (1995). The control of two-element, reciprocal aiming movements: Evidence of chunking. Human Movement Science, 14, 1–11.
    1. Adam J. J., van der Bruggen D. P. W., Bekkering H. (1993). The control of discrete and reciprocal aiming responses: Evidence for the exploitation of mechanics. Human Movement Science, 12, 353–364.

LinkOut - more resources