» Articles » PMID: 26961954

Independence of Movement Preparation and Movement Initiation

Overview
Journal J Neurosci
Specialty Neurology
Date 2016 Mar 11
PMID 26961954
Citations 84
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Initiating a movement in response to a visual stimulus takes significantly longer than might be expected on the basis of neural transmission delays, but it is unclear why. In a visually guided reaching task, we forced human participants to move at lower-than-normal reaction times to test whether normal reaction times are strictly necessary for accurate movement. We found that participants were, in fact, capable of moving accurately ∼80 ms earlier than their reaction times would suggest. Reaction times thus include a seemingly unnecessary delay that accounts for approximately one-third of their duration. Close examination of participants' behavior in conventional reaction-time conditions revealed that they generated occasional, spontaneous errors in trials in which their reaction time was unusually short. The pattern of these errors could be well accounted for by a simple model in which the timing of movement initiation is independent of the timing of movement preparation. This independence provides an explanation for why reaction times are usually so sluggish: delaying the mean time of movement initiation relative to preparation reduces the risk that a movement will be initiated before it has been appropriately prepared. Our results suggest that preparation and initiation of movement are mechanistically independent and may have a distinct neural basis. The results also demonstrate that, even in strongly stimulus-driven tasks, presentation of a stimulus does not directly trigger a movement. Rather, the stimulus appears to trigger an internal decision whether to make a movement, reflecting a volitional rather than reactive mode of control.

Citing Articles

Feedback and feedforward control are differentially delayed in cerebellar ataxia.

Cao D, Wilkinson M, Bastian A, Cowan N bioRxiv. 2025; .

PMID: 39990312 PMC: 11844357. DOI: 10.1101/2025.02.09.637327.


The forced-response method: A new chronometric approach to measure conflict processing.

Lee T, Sellers J, Jonides J, Zhang H Behav Res Methods. 2024; 57(1):15.

PMID: 39668280 DOI: 10.3758/s13428-024-02516-y.


Motor practice related changes in the sensorimotor cortices of youth with cerebral palsy.

Kurz M, Taylor B, Heinrichs-Graham E, Spooner R, Baker S, Wilson T Brain Commun. 2024; 6(5):fcae332.

PMID: 39391334 PMC: 11465084. DOI: 10.1093/braincomms/fcae332.


The temporal dynamics of visual attention.

Zhang H, Sellers J, Lee T, Jonides J J Exp Psychol Gen. 2024; 154(2):435-456.

PMID: 39361368 PMC: 11790386. DOI: 10.1037/xge0001661.


When and why does motor preparation arise in recurrent neural network models of motor control?.

Schimel M, Kao T, Hennequin G Elife. 2024; 12.

PMID: 39316044 PMC: 11421851. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.89131.


References
1.
Valls-Sole J, Rothwell J, Goulart F, Cossu G, Munoz E . Patterned ballistic movements triggered by a startle in healthy humans. J Physiol. 1999; 516 ( Pt 3):931-8. PMC: 2269293. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-7793.1999.0931u.x. View

2.
Day B, Lyon I . Voluntary modification of automatic arm movements evoked by motion of a visual target. Exp Brain Res. 2000; 130(2):159-68. DOI: 10.1007/s002219900218. View

3.
Gold J, Shadlen M . Neural computations that underlie decisions about sensory stimuli. Trends Cogn Sci. 2001; 5(1):10-16. DOI: 10.1016/s1364-6613(00)01567-9. View

4.
Cunnington R, Windischberger C, Deecke L, Moser E . The preparation and execution of self-initiated and externally-triggered movement: a study of event-related fMRI. Neuroimage. 2002; 15(2):373-85. DOI: 10.1006/nimg.2001.0976. View

5.
Erlhagen W, Schoner G . Dynamic field theory of movement preparation. Psychol Rev. 2002; 109(3):545-72. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295x.109.3.545. View