TY - JOUR
T1 - Impact forces cannot explain the one-target advantage in rapid aimed hand movements
AU - Biegstraaten, Marianne
AU - Smeets, Jeroen B J
AU - Brenner, Eli
PY - 2003/8
Y1 - 2003/8
N2 - A pointing movement is executed faster when a subject is allowed to stop at the first target than when the subject has to proceed to a second target ("one-target advantage"). Our hypothesis was that this is because the impact at the target helps to stop the finger when the finger does not have to proceed to a second target. This hypothesis would predict that the horizontal force at contact with the first target should be larger when there is only one-target. Modelling smooth movements with larger forces at contact using a minimum-jerk model, shows that the peak velocity is slightly higher and it occurs later during the movement when there is only one target. Although the one-target advantage was present in our experiment, the horizontal force at contact in the one-target condition was not larger than in the two-target condition. The time of the maximum velocity did not differ, but the maximum velocity was higher in the one-target condition. Thus our hypothesis is rejected, favouring a non-mechanical explanation of the one-target advantage.
AB - A pointing movement is executed faster when a subject is allowed to stop at the first target than when the subject has to proceed to a second target ("one-target advantage"). Our hypothesis was that this is because the impact at the target helps to stop the finger when the finger does not have to proceed to a second target. This hypothesis would predict that the horizontal force at contact with the first target should be larger when there is only one-target. Modelling smooth movements with larger forces at contact using a minimum-jerk model, shows that the peak velocity is slightly higher and it occurs later during the movement when there is only one target. Although the one-target advantage was present in our experiment, the horizontal force at contact in the one-target condition was not larger than in the two-target condition. The time of the maximum velocity did not differ, but the maximum velocity was higher in the one-target condition. Thus our hypothesis is rejected, favouring a non-mechanical explanation of the one-target advantage.
KW - Impact force
KW - Motor control
KW - One-target advantage
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0043288085&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0043288085&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/S0167-9457(03)00050-2
DO - 10.1016/S0167-9457(03)00050-2
M3 - Article
C2 - 12967763
AN - SCOPUS:0043288085
SN - 0167-9457
VL - 22
SP - 365
EP - 376
JO - Human Movement Science
JF - Human Movement Science
IS - 3
ER -