In this paper, we respond to the commentary by R. J. Bootsma, L. Fernandez, A. H. P. Morice, and G. Montagne (2010) concerning our original study on the role of vision during the execution of fast interceptive actions (A. J. van Soest, L. J. R. Casius, W. de Kok, M. Krijger, M. Meeder, and P. J. Beek, 2010), that was inspired by the seminal study of R. J. Bootsma and P. C. W. van Wieringen (1990). Most importantly, we reiterate that the control strategy used in the simulation study (preprogrammed muscle stimulation, triggered at an appropriate time) was adopted on the sole ground that it was the simplest control strategy that allowed us to investigate the role of the visco-elastic properties of muscles. Regarding the visuomotor delay of our participants, we note that the assumption that the visuomotor delay can be reliably identified as the time from the occurrence of a minimum in the coefficient of variation of the relative rate of dilation to the instant of ball contact, is not generally accepted; lacking firm data on the visuomotor delay of our participants, any arguments on the relation between movement time and visuomotor delay are not well grounded. All in all, we believe that our original study added several new-but by no means final-insights to the understanding of the control of fast interceptive actions. © 2010 American Psychological Association.
|Journal||Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance|
|Publication status||Published - 2010|