Evidence for an error deadzone in compensatory tracking
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review
Standard
Evidence for an error deadzone in compensatory tracking. / Wolpert, D. M.; Miall, R. C.; Winter, J. L.; Stein, J. F.
In: Journal of motor behavior, Vol. 24, No. 4, 01.01.1992, p. 299-308.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Evidence for an error deadzone in compensatory tracking
AU - Wolpert, D. M.
AU - Miall, R. C.
AU - Winter, J. L.
AU - Stein, J. F.
PY - 1992/1/1
Y1 - 1992/1/1
N2 - Humans and monkeys show intermittent arm movements while tracking moving targets. This intermittency has been explained by postulating either a psychological refractory period after each movement and/or an error deadzone, an area surrounding the target within which movements are not initiated. We present a technique to detect and quantify the size of this deadzone, using a compensatory tracking paradigm that distinguishes it from a psychological refractory period. An artificial deadzone of variable size was added around a visual target displayed on a computer screen. While the subject was within this area, he received visual feedback that showed him to be directly on target. The presence of this artificial deadzone could affect tracking performance only if it exceeded the size of his intrinsic deadzone. Therefore, the size of artificial deadzone at which performance began to be affected revealed the size of the intrinsic deadzone. Measured at the subjects' eye, the deadzone was found to vary between 0.06 and 0.38°, depending on the tracking task and viewing conditions; on the screen, this range was 1.3 mm to 3.3 mm. It increased with increasing speed of the target, with increasing viewing distance, and when the amplitude of the movement required was reduced. However, the deadzone size was not significantly correlated with the subjects' level of performance. We conclude that an intrinsic deadzone exists during compensatory tracking, and we suggest that its size is set by a cognitive process not simply related to the difficulty of the tracking task.
AB - Humans and monkeys show intermittent arm movements while tracking moving targets. This intermittency has been explained by postulating either a psychological refractory period after each movement and/or an error deadzone, an area surrounding the target within which movements are not initiated. We present a technique to detect and quantify the size of this deadzone, using a compensatory tracking paradigm that distinguishes it from a psychological refractory period. An artificial deadzone of variable size was added around a visual target displayed on a computer screen. While the subject was within this area, he received visual feedback that showed him to be directly on target. The presence of this artificial deadzone could affect tracking performance only if it exceeded the size of his intrinsic deadzone. Therefore, the size of artificial deadzone at which performance began to be affected revealed the size of the intrinsic deadzone. Measured at the subjects' eye, the deadzone was found to vary between 0.06 and 0.38°, depending on the tracking task and viewing conditions; on the screen, this range was 1.3 mm to 3.3 mm. It increased with increasing speed of the target, with increasing viewing distance, and when the amplitude of the movement required was reduced. However, the deadzone size was not significantly correlated with the subjects' level of performance. We conclude that an intrinsic deadzone exists during compensatory tracking, and we suggest that its size is set by a cognitive process not simply related to the difficulty of the tracking task.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0001657374&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/00222895.1992.9941626
DO - 10.1080/00222895.1992.9941626
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:0001657374
VL - 24
SP - 299
EP - 308
JO - Journal of motor behavior
JF - Journal of motor behavior
SN - 0022-2895
IS - 4
ER -