Skip to main content

Specificity of practice results from differences in movement planning strategies

Experimental Brain Research volume 183, pages 181–193 (2007)Cite this article

Abstract

Withdrawing visual feedback after practice of a manual aiming task results in a severe decrease in aiming accuracy. This decrease in accuracy is such that participants are often less accurate than controls who are beginning practice of the task without visual feedback. These results have been interpreted as evidence that motor learning is specific to the sources of afferent information optimizing performance, because it could be processed at the exclusion of other sources of afferent information. The goal of the present study was to test this hypothesis. To reach our goal we evaluated whether online visual feedback prevented kinesthetic information to be used for: (1) eliminating movement anisotropy resulting from difference in limb inertia when aiming in different directions and (2) creating an internal model of limb mechanics. Participants practiced a manual aiming task with or without visual feedback and with knowledge of results. After this acquisition phase, participants performed two transfer tests. The first transfer test was performed without visual feedback and/or knowledge of results. The second transfer test was similar to the first one but participants initiated their movements from a different starting base. The results showed strong specificity effects in that withdrawing visual feedback resulted in large pointing bias and variability. However, the results of the two transfer tests showed that the processing of visual feedback did not prevent the processing of kinesthetic information used to eliminate movement anisotropy or to create an internal model of limb mechanics. Rather, specificity of practice effects resulted from participants using the same motor plan in transfer as they did in acquisition even though they had no longer access to visual feedback to modulate their movement online. These results indicate that during acquisition participants adopted different movement planning strategies depending on the source of afferent information available.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Notes

  1. Note that no such bias was observed when participants were trained to initiate their movements from different starting bases in the presence of knowledge of results (Lhuisset and Proteau 2004).

  2. This definition of movement initiation differed from that used during data collection. In addition to the normal impact of the filtering procedure on the time scale, it will result in apparently longer movement times in comparison to the movement time bandwidth accepted during data collection.

References

  • Bédard P, Proteau L (2005) Movement planning of video and of manual aiming movements. Spat Vis 18:275–296

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charvin M, Proteau L (1996) Developmental differences in the processing of afferent information for motor control. Dev Neuropsychol 2:347–387

    Google Scholar 

  • Chicoine A, Lassonde M, Proteau L (1992) Developmental aspects of sensorimotor integration. Dev Neuropsychol 8:381–394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desmurget M, Grafton S (2000) Forward modeling allows feedback control for fast reaching movements. Trends Cogn Sci 4:423–431

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elliott D, Allard F (1985) The utilization of visual feedback information during rapid pointing movements. Q J Exp Psychol 37:407–425

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Elliott D, Calvert R (1990) The influence of uncertainty and premovement visual information on manual aiming. Can J Exp Psychol 44:501–511

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Elliott D, Carson RG, Goodman D, Chua R (1991) Discrete vs. continuous visual control of manual aiming movements. Hum Mov Sci 10:393–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitts PM (1954) The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. J Exp Psychol 47:381–391

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ghilardi MF, Gordon J, Ghez C (1995a) Deafferented subjects do not compensate for workspace anisotropies of limb movements. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 95:73P–73P (71)

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghilardi MF, Gordon J, Ghez C (1995b) Learning a visuomotor transformation in a local area of work space produces directional biases in other areas. J Neurophysiol 73:2535–2539

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon J, Ghilardi MF, Cooper SE, Ghez C (1994) Accuracy of planar reaching movements. Exp Brain Res 99:112–130

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen S, Glazebrook CM, Anson JG, Weeks DJ, Elliott D (2006) The influence of advance information about target location and visual feedback on movement planning and execution. Can J Exp Psychol 60:200–208

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Harris CM, Wolpert DM (1998) Signal-dependent noise determines motor planning. Nature 394:780–784

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Khan MA, Franks IM (2003) Online versus offline processing of visual feedback in the production of component submovements. J Mot Behav 35:285–295

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khan MA, Franks IM, Goodman D (1998) The effect of practice on the control of rapid aiming movements: evidence for an interdependency between programming and feedback processing. Q J Exp Psychol 51:425–443

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khan MA, Franks IM, Elliott D, Lawrence GP, Chua R, Bernier PM, Hansen S, Weeks DJ (2006) Inferring online and offline processing of visual feedback in target-directed movements from kinematic data. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 30:1106–1121

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lhuisset L, Proteau L (2004) Planning and control of straight-ahead and angled planar movements in adults and young children. Can J Exp Psychol 58:245–258

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer DE, Abrams RA, Kornblum S, Wright CE, Smith JE (1988) Optimality in human motor performance: ideal control of rapid aimed movements. Psychol Rev 95:340–370

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Novak K, Miller L, Houk J (2002) The use of overlapping submovements in the control of rapid hand movements. Exp Brain Res 144:351–364

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Novak K, Miller L, Houk J (2003) Features of motor performance that drive adaptation in rapid hand movements. Exp Brain Res 148:388–400

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Proteau L (1992) On the specificity of learning and the role of visual information for movement control. In: Proteau L, Elliott D (eds) Vision and motor control, vol 85. North Holland, Amsterdam, pp 67–103

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Proteau L (2005) Visual afferent information dominates other sources of afferent information during mixed practice of a video-aiming task. Exp Brain Res 161:441–456

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Proteau L, Carnahan H (2001) What causes specificity of practice in a manual aiming movement: vision dominance or transformation errors? J Mot Behav 33:226

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Proteau L, Cournoyer J (1990) Vision of the stylus in a manual aiming task: the effect of practice. Q J Exp Psychol 42A:811–828

    Google Scholar 

  • Proteau L, Marteniuk RG, Girouard Y, Dugas C (1987) On the type of information used to control and learn an aiming movement after moderate and extensive training. Hum Mov Sci 6:181–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Proteau L, Al Roujoula A, Messier J (2007) Online control of video-aiming movements: fast and efficient corrections of undetected experimentally-induced errors. Unpublished data

  • Robin C, Toussaint L, Blandin Y, Proteau L (2005) Specificity of learning in a video-aiming task: modifying the salience of dynamic visual cues. J Mot Behav 37:367–376

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossetti Y, Desmurget M, Prablanc C (1995) Vectorial coding of movement: vision, proprioception, or both? J Neurophysiol 74:457–463

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Soucy MC, Proteau L (2001) Development of multiple movement representations with practice: specificity versus flexibility. J Mot Behav 33:243–254

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tremblay L, Proteau L (1998) Specificity of practice: the case of powerlifting. Res Q Exerc Sport 69:284–289

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Virji-Babul N, Sainburg RL, Huang H, Ghez C (1997) Rate of learning novel limb dynamics depends on the nature of feedback signals. Soc Neurosci 85

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Département de Kinésiologie, Université de Montréal, C.P. 6128, Succursale Centre Ville, Montreal, QC, Canada, H3C 3J7

    Isabelle Mackrous & Luc Proteau

Authors
  1. Isabelle Mackrous
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Luc Proteau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luc Proteau.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mackrous, I., Proteau, L. Specificity of practice results from differences in movement planning strategies. Exp Brain Res 183, 181–193 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-007-1031-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-007-1031-z

Keywords

  • Movement planning
  • Movement control
  • Internal model
  • Manual aiming
  • Learning
  • Kinesthesis
  • Visual feedback