Response-repetition effects depend on motor set: Evidence for anatomical coding in response selection

•We investigated response repetition effects with 1-hand and 2-hands motor sets.•With the 1-hand set the repetition benefit was independent of cue type.•With the two-hands set it was strongly modulated by cue type.•The findings highlight the key role of the neuro-anatomical hand distinction.•The fin...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Human movement science 2014-02, Vol.33, p.172-184
Main Authors: Adam, Jos J., Koch, Iring
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adult
Attention
Choice Behavior
Cues
Female
Functional Laterality
Humans
Male
Neuro-anatomical organization
Orientation
Practice (Psychology)
Psychomotor Performance
Reaction Time
Response coding
Response preparation
Response repetition
Response selection
Response-cuing paradigm
Young Adult
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:•We investigated response repetition effects with 1-hand and 2-hands motor sets.•With the 1-hand set the repetition benefit was independent of cue type.•With the two-hands set it was strongly modulated by cue type.•The findings highlight the key role of the neuro-anatomical hand distinction.•The findings support multiple coding notions of response selection. Successful motor performance requires a process of response selection that chooses the correct response out of a set of possible ones. Most theories of response selection assume that this selection process operates on spatial codes, which define the location of stimuli and responses in environmental coordinates, with little or no role for the anatomical codes of the effectors involved. In this study, we tested this assumption by investigating response-repetition effects in a response-cuing paradigm using two motor sets (fingers on one hand vs. fingers on two hands). Reaction time results demonstrated a robust response-repetition benefit that was greater for the one-hand set than for the two-hands set. Furthermore, with the one-hand set the repetition benefit was independent of cue type and cue-stimulus interval on the previous trial, whereas with the two-hands set it was strongly modulated by these two factors. These differential response-repetition effects for one- and two-hands motor sets demonstrate the important role of the neuro-anatomical hand distinction in response selection, thereby supporting multiple coding notions.
ISSN:0167-9457
1872-7646
DOI:10.1016/j.humov.2013.09.001