Prospective and retrospective effects in a virtual pointing task

The computational perspective: A catalyst for research questions in cognitive neuroscience?

Where do novel research questions come from? We suggest that identifying key computational problems and comparing solutions across domains can be one source. We exemplify this by looking at perception and action and outline how findings from one domain may generate novel research avenues in the other.

Working memory load does not affect sequential motor planning

Movement planning disrupts the recall performance in a short term memory task, indicating that both processes share common working memory (WM) resources. In the current study, we tested whether this interference was bidirectional. To this end, we combined an easy or a difficult memory task (depleting different amounts of WM resources) with a sequential motor task (opening a column of drawers). The size of the hysteresis effect in the sequential motor task was measured as a proxy for the fraction of motor plan reuse. The different WM loads created by the memory task had no effect on the fractions of motor plan reuse and motor (re-)planning, which supports the idea that motor planning has priority access to WM. A recency effect (better recall of late items) was absent in a verbal memory task but present in a spatial one. Recency is commonly attributed to the episodic buffer, a non-domain-specific storage of the central executive. The domain-specific interference of the motor task with recency indicates that the second assumption needs to be reevaluated.

Motor hysteresis in a sequential grasping and pointing task is absent in task-critical joints

In a prior study (Schütz et al. in Exp Brain Res 2016. doi: 10.1007/s00221-016-4608-6 ), we demonstrated that the cognitive cost of motor planning did not differ in a vertical pointing and grasping task. It was unclear whether the similar cost implied that both tasks required the same number of independent degrees of freedom (IDOFs) or that the number of IDOFs did not affect motor planning. To differentiate between both cases, a reanalysis of the prior data was conducted. The number of IDOFs in the pointing and grasping tasks was computed by factor analysis. In both tasks, two IDOFs were used, which was the minimum number required for position control. This indicates that hand alignment in the grasping task did not require an additional IDOF. No conclusions regarding the link between the cognitive cost of motor planning and the number of IDOFs could be drawn. A subset of task-critical joint angles was not affected by motor hysteresis. This indicates that a joint's susceptibility to motor hysteresis depends on its relevance to the task goal. In task-critical joints, planning cost minimization by motor plan reuse is suppressed in favor of the task goal.

Cognitive costs of motor planning do not differ between pointing and grasping in a sequential task

Neurophysiologic studies have shown differences in brain activation between pointing and grasping movements. We asked whether these two movement types would differ in their cognitive costs of motor planning. To this end, we designed a sequential, continuous posture selection task, suitable to investigate pointing and grasping movements to identical target locations. Participants had to open a column of drawers or point to a column of targets in ascending and descending progression. The global hand pro/supination at the moment of drawer/target contact was measured. The size of the motor hysteresis effect, i.e., the persistence to a former posture, was used as a proxy for the cognitive cost of motor planning. A larger hysteresis effect equals higher cognitive cost. Both motor tasks had similar costs of motor planning, but a larger range of motion was found for the grasping movements.