On-line Control of Rapid Aiming Movements:
Unexpected Target Perturbations and Movement Kinematics
MATTHEW HEATH, University of Waterloo
NICOLA J. HODGES, University of British Columbia
ROMEO CHUA, University of Alberta
DIGBY ELLIOTT, McMaster University
Abstract Two experiments were conducted to assess the use
of on-line visual information during rapid goal-directed
aiming movements. In both experiments, participants were
required to complete a discrete aiming movement to a single
target on a graphics tablet. In Experiment 1, during 76% of
the experimental trials, the target width remained constant
throughout the movement. The remaining 24% of the trials
were evenly divided between two target perturbations in
which the width of the target unexpectedly increased or
decreased in si2e upon movement initiation. During Experi-
ment 2, the spatial location of the single target was perturbed
to a new location closer to, or further away from the original
target position. The proportion of perturbation trials re-
mained constant across experiments. The results indicated
that peak velocity was determined prior to movement initia-
tion in order to meet the speed-accuracy demands of the
original target width or movement amplitude. In contrast,
during deceleration, participants modified their movement
trajectories to account for a perturbation in target width or
movement amplitude. These data suggest that on-line moni-
toring of visual information can be used to modify the latter
half of a movement trajectory.
The issue of how goal-directed aiming movements are
controlled has been controversial since the seminal studies of
Woodworth (1899) almost a century ago. A major concern
has been whether the control of aiming movements is a
continual process as feedback-based models posit (i.e.,
Adams, 1971), whether they are planned wholly in advance of
execution (i.e., planned control; Plamondon, 1995a, 1995b;
Schmidt, Zelaznik, Hawkins, Frank, & Quinn, 1979), or if the
process is some combination of the two (Beggs & Howarth,
1970; Grossman & Goodeve, 1963/1983).
Woodworth (1899) originally coined the terms "initial
impulse" and "current control" to describe simple aiming
movements as a combination of both central and feedback-
based processes. Specifically, an initial impulse is programmed
before the movement begins to bring the end-effector close
to the target. Current control is evoked to correct for error in
Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1998, 52:4, 163-173
die initial movement trajectory if response-produced feedback
indicates that die limb will fall outside of die target bound-
aries. Thus, this second phase of the movement is dependent
on visual and proprioceptive information about the position
of the end-effector in relation to the target. According to
Woodworth, it is the current control phase diat is responsible
for the speed-accuracy relation observed during rapid goal-
directed aiming. Although this original formulation by
Woodworth has undergone numerous transformations, the
important components of the model still feature prominendy
in current explanations of limb control (i.e., Abrams, Meyer,
& Kornblum, 1990; Beggs & Howarth, 1970; Carlton, 1979,
1981,1992; Chua & Elliott, 1993; Meyer, Abrams, Komblum,
Wright, & Smith, 1988).
A good model of limb control should not only explain the
well-known relation between speed and accuracy (Fitts, 1954;
Fitts & Peterson, 1964), but also how the characteristics of the
aiming trajectories will change widi the accuracy demands of
the movement and the availability of task-relevant informa-
tion. An examination of movement kinematics indicates diat
increases in movement time with increasing accuracy de-
mands are primarily due to an increase in die time spent
following peak velocity, when die limb is decelerating and
executing any adjustments required to hit die target (i.e.,
Langolf, Chaffin, & Foulke, 1976; MacKenzie, Marteniuk,
Dugas, liske, & Eickmeier, 1987). Presumably, this extra time
is required to process and use visual and proprioceptive
feedback about die relative positions of the limb and target in
order to reduce any error associated with the initial movement
impulse (Chua & Elliott, 1993). This explanation of the
dynamics of movement trajectories is based partly on findings
which indicate that when vision is occluded upon movement
initiation, less of the total movement time is spent after peak
velocity, compared to situations in which vision is available
over the entire course of die movement (Chua & Elliott, 1993;
Elliott, Carson, Goodman, & Chua, 1991). Some studies have
also shown diat when vision of the aiming limb and target is
available, there are a greater number of secondary accelera-
tions and significant deviations in the acceleration profile than
in visually degraded conditions (Elliott, Chua, Pollock, &
164
Lyons, 1995; Elliott, Lyons, & Dyson, 1997; cf. Elliott et al.,
1991). These fluctuations in the trajectory are thought to
reflect corrections to the movement made on the basis of
response-produced visual feedback (Chua & Elliott, 1993;
van Donkelaar & Franks, 1991).
Although an increase in movement time with greater
accuracy demands (Fitts, 1954) has been attributed to the
utilization of visual information during the movement, there
have been alternative explanations for the trade-off between
speed and accuracy. For example, Wallace and Newell (1983)
have shown that in the absence of vision, speed-accuracy
trade-offs are still observed (cf. Elliott & Allard, 1985; Keele
& Posner, 1968). As well, Schmidt et al. (1979) have argued
that the speed-accuracy relation is due to variability associated
with the initial movement impulse and therefore the result of
movement programming prior to initiation (cf., Elliott, Heath,
Binstead, Ricker, Roy, & Chua, 1998).
Recently, Plamondon (1995a, 1995b; Plamondon & Alimi,
1997) has proposed a model to account for speed-accuracy
trade-offs and the kinematic characteristics of goal-directed
movements. According to Plamondon's kinematic theory,
rapid goal-directed movements are controlled in a pro-
grammed fashion, thereby minimizing the role of vision and
other afferent information during movement execution.
Specifically, Plamondon and Alimi (1997, p. 298) claim that,
"No visual feedback is needed during the movement, except
... for the preparation of the next movement." In contrast to
feedback-based explanations of discontinuities in the velocity
and acceleration profiles of a movement, Plamondon and
Alimi propose that variations in the movement profile are
emergent properties of an agonist-antagonist synergy. Specifi-
cally, multiple peaks in the velocity profile of a movement are
the result of different timing properties between the impulse
commands of opposing muscles, and not due to the imple-
mentation of new commands based on feedback-based
processes.
Thus, in contrast to other perspectives on the regulation of
movement (i.e., Chua & Elliott, 1993; Elliott et al., 1991;
Heath, Roy, & Weir, 1998), which posit the on-line utilization
of afferent information (i.e., visual) to guide the limb to the
goal, Plamondon's kinematic theory (i.e., Plamondon & Alimi,
1997) essentially emphasizes movement control that is
primarily central in nature. In particular, the movement that
results from the actions of an agonist-antagonist synergy is
executed without the use of feedback for guidance.
Plamondon and Alimi acknowledge that feedback could be
used to prepare a new movement, should new information
become available during an initial movement that indicates a
need to change the original trajectory. However, the new
movement would itself be executed in a programmed manner.
In sum, the kinematic theory proposes that feedback can play
a role in the preparation of movement but not in the on-line
regulation of the movement.
Heath, Hodges, Chua, and Elliott
Experiment 1
The purpose of Experiment 1 was to evaluate the relative
importance of prior planning and the on-line use of afferent
information in the control of goal-directed aiming move-
ments. We created a situation in which new visual information
pertaining to the movement goal was made available following
the initiation of a movement, thereby creating a requirement
to modify the originally planned movement. Specifically, we
examined the ability of the performer to adapt to changes in
target size that sometimes occurred upon movement initia-
tion. This type of perturbation occurs frequently in everyday
living (i.e., reaching for an object that is further than originally
planned) and is a concern in occupations that utilize remote
feedback. For instance, during microscopic surgery, surgeons
are often exposed to situations in which the size of the object
they are manipulating (i.e., blood vessel) unexpectedly changes
following a movement (i.e., preparing a suture, see Starkes &
Allard, 1993). Given this scenario, on-line control of the
effector is essential for ensuring overall movement precision.
If the target-directed movement is planned entirely in
advance without subsequent feedback-based updates about
the trajectory, then changing the target size and associated
index of difficulty (see Fitts, 1954) should have little or no
impact on movement time or the characteristics of the
movement trajectory. That is, the movement time and
movement kinematics should reflect the target characteristics
prior to movement initiation. For example, compared to a
small target, participants should reach higher peak velocities
and spend less time after peak velocity when aiming at targets
larger in initial size. Moreover, even if the new target informa-
tion can be utilized to prepare a secondary movement, as the
kinematic theory allows, it should only be in those situations
where modifications to the movement trajectory are observed.
In contrast, when the goal of the movement remains invari-
ant, then the movement should be carried out in a pro-
grammed fashion and be devoid of indications that continu-
ous, feedback-based guidance occurred (Le., discontinuities in
the acceleration profile following peak velocity). Models
emphasizing the importance of on-line visual processing
would suggest that the movement kinematics should be
influenced by the new movement and target information.
Specifically, participants would be expected to spend more
time following peak velocity and make a greater number of
adjustments to their movement trajectory, when faced with a
target that has unexpectedly decreased in width immediately
following movement initiation. Indeed, these feedback-based
models would also suggest that evidence of on-line utilization
of visual information should be evident even when the goal of
the movement does not change during the movement.
METHOD
Participants. Ten volunteers from the McMaster University
community (6 men and 4 women) ranging in age from 23 to
On-line Control of Rapid Aiming Movements
Inverted Computer Monitor
Fully Silvered Mirror
Table Top
Graphics Tablet
Computer
Figure 1. Schematic of apparatus.
37 years volunteered to participate in the study. All partici-
pants had normal or corrected-to-normal vision and were
right-handed by self-report.
Apparatus and task. A schematic of the apparatus appears in
Figure 1. The apparatus consisted of a modified computer
monitor with an inverted screen image. This image was
projected on a fully silvered mirror such dial a computer
cursor and target displayed on the monitor were reflected on
the mirror and superimposed on the hand, which made
aiming movements direcdy underneath die mirror. Partici-
pants held a computer mouse (SummaSketch II 4-button
mouse) with dieir dominant hand and made aiming move-
ments on a 58.5 x 44.5 cm graphics tablet (SummaSketch II
professional MMII1812 ) which sampled at its maximum rate
of 138.85 Hz (one sample/7.2 ms). Participants were required
to move a solid yellow cursor (0.5 cm) into a red home
position (circular opening of 0.75 cm) at the beginning of
each trial. The mapping between die graphics tablet and
computer monitor was direct, such that a 1-cm displacement
of the computer mouse corresponded to 1-cm displacement
of die cursor. Once die home position had been achieved, a
target of solid blue appeared on die mirror direcdy anterior to
die cursor and home position. Achieving diis target location
required linear displacement of die hand away from die
midline of the body. Participants were required to make a
rapid, but accurate, aiming movement to diis single target
which appeared 13 cm directly in front of die home position.
On 76% of the trials, the target appearing prior to movement
initiation (width =1.5 cm) remained constant in size; however
on 24% of trials, a target perturbation occurred when the
cursor left die home position. On half of die perturbation
trials a smaller target appeared (width = 0.5 cm), and on die
other half, a larger target appeared (width = 4 cm). Amplitude
165
of the movement to the centre of the target remained con-
stant at 13 cm.1
Procedure. Participants were seated in front of the target-aiming
apparatus such dial the midline of dieir body was aligned with
the primary direction of die movement (Y axis). Participants
were told to use die mouse to move die cursor from die
home position to die target "as quickly and as accurately as
possible." Participants were instructed diat it was not crucial
to hit the centre of die target, but rather that any trial in -which
the cursor was widiin the target boundary was correct. The
monitor provided vision of the cursor, home position, and
target diroughout the movement.
Each participant completed 16 practice trials. Four of diese
practice trials included target perturbations to die small and
large targets (i.e., 2 each). Thus, participants were not naive to
the fact die target size could change during die experimental
trials. At die end of die practice trials, participants performed
200 experimental trials, in two blocks of 100 trials. Once
again, on 76% of diese trials target size did not change,
whereas the remaining trials included perturbations to the
small and large target. The position of perturbation trials was
randomly assigned widiin each block of trials. Upon comple-
tion of die experimental trials, participants were given at least
a 5-minute rest period. After die rest period, participants were
required to complete 60 control trials. The control trials
consisted of non-perturbed aiming movements to each target
widdi (small, medium, and large). Thus, the target that
appeared prior to movement initiation remained constant
throughout die movement and participants were aware diat
trials would not be perturbed. The control trials were con-
ducted and analyzed in two blocks of 10 trials for each target
size. The order of target size for the control trials was
randomized separately for each participant. Any trial(s)
including movement prior to the appearance of die target
were excluded from further analysis.
Data reduction. The raw displacement data in the primary
direction of movement (Y axis)2 were filtered with a second-
order dual-pass Butterworth filter using a low-pass cutoff
frequency of 6 Hz.3 Instantaneous velocity and acceleration
' Index of difficulty is defined as the relationship between movement
amplitude and target width, and represents the number of bits of
information associated with the movement (ID logj (2A/W)). The indices
of difficulty associated with the small, medium, and large targets in
Experiment 1 were 2.7, 4.2, and 5.7 bits, respectively.
2
The primary direction of movement (Y-axis) was oriented in the
antero-posterior plane. The X-axis was oriented in the medial-lateral
plane.
* The low-pass Butterworth filter is designed to reduce, or attenuate, high
frequency components of a signal (typically noise), while allowing low
frequency components (movement related) to pass through unattenuated.
The frequency cutoff set for the filter represents the boundary values
between the high and low frequency components (Winter, 1990).
166 Heath, Hodges, Chua, and Elliott

TABLE 1
Mean Movement Time (ms), Constant Error (mm), Variable Error (mm), Peak Velocity (mm/s), Time To Peak Velocity (ms), Time After Peak Velocity (ms),
and Corrective Submovements as a Function of Condition, Target, and Block in Experiment 1

Experimental Condition Control Condition

Dependent Variable/Block small medium large small medium large

Movement Time
Block 1 577 543 481 622 533 427
Block 2 588 543 484 590 512 426

Constant Error
Block 1 -1.62 -2.52 -4.12 -1.88 -1.47 -6.67
Block 2 -2.21 -2.04 -2.91 -1.99 -1.74 -5.16

Variable Error
Block 1 3.11 6.41 5.17 1.93 3.63 8.38
Block 2 2.63 4.26 4.15 2.91 3.30 5.30

Peak Velocity
Block 1 879 862 852 832 889 957
Block 2 887 890 901 854 907 1,027

Time to Peak Velocity

Block 1 189 190 184 190 187 170
Block 2 190 188 184 188 190 163

Time After Peak Velocity

Block 1 388 352 295 431 347 261
Block 2 398 353 301 403 317 256

Number of Corrections
Block 1 0.86 0.78 0.58 0.91 0.83 0.61
Block 2 0.97 0.77 0.63 0.87 0.73 0.63

were determined by differentiating displacement and velocity
data, respectively, using a two-point central finite difference
algorithm (Elliott et al, 1991).
The first instantaneous velocity equal to, or greater than 30
mm/s defined the beginning of the movement. The end of
the movement was considered when the absolute velocity
value fell below the 30 mm/s value for more than five
samples (36 ms). Movement time was calculated by dividing
the number of samples between the beginning and the end of
the movement by the sampling frequency. In the same
manner, the number of samples between the beginning of the
movement and the sample at which peak velocity was attained
was used to determine the time to peak velocity.
The appearance of corrective submovements is further
evidence that movement trajectories were modified on the
basis of feedback-based information. Corrective sub-
movements were assessed by examining the velocity and
acceleration profiles for each trial. These corrective
submovements were defined as significant deviations in
acceleration over and above the primary acceleration and
deceleration, and included deviations before and after peak
velocity, and secondary zero-crossings. As well, reversals in
the direction of movement were determined from the velocity
profiles. Zero-crossings were negative to positive transitions
in acceleration, while significant deviations were "fluctuations"
in acceleration that did not lead to a change in sign. Following
Chua and Elliott (1993), these fluctuations in acceleration were
required to last at least 72 ms (i.e., 10 samples in this study)
and meet an amplitude criterion of 10% of the greatest
absolute acceleration value. Reversals were simply positive to
negative transitions in velocity which reflect a change from
forward to backward movement. A custom interactive
program was used to identify when a particular type of
correction was present during a trial. These corrections were
tallied and divided by the number of trials in each condition to
determine the average number of corrections per trial.
The dependent measures included movement time, peak
velocity, time to peak velocity, time after peak velocity, the
mean number of corrections per trial, as well as constant and
variable error in the direction of the movement. Constant
error is simply the mean signed error in displacement between
the centre of the target and the centre of the cursor at the end
of the movement, while variable error is the within-subject
standard deviation of these signed errors. The error measures
were employed to determine if spatial accuracy and consis-
tency (i.e., effective target width) changed as a function of
experimental manipulation. Along with movement time, they
reflect a participant's performance. In terms of the kinematic
measures, peak velocity and time to peak velocity are usually
taken to reflect the programming that takes place prior to
On-line Control of Rapid Aiming Movements
movement initiation. In contrast, time after peak velocity and
the number of corrections per trial are thought to represent
the degree of on-line control (see Chua & Elliott, 1993).
RESULTS
All dependent variables were analyzed by a 2 Condition
(experimental, control) x 3 Target (small, medium, large) x 2
Block (first, second) repeated measures analysis of variance.
Significant effects and interactions were further analyzed
using Tukey's HSD procedure (p < .05). Note that during the
experimental condition, the medium target represented
movements in which no change in target size occurred, and
that small and krge targets represented the perturbation trials.
The mean values for each treatment and dependent measure
are presented in Table 1. Only those main effects or interac-
tions reaching conventional levels of significance (p = .05) are
discussed.
Movement time. Analysis of mean movement time revealed a
main effect for Target, F(2,18) = 80.28, MSB = 2,296.68,
p < .001, as well as a Condition x Target interaction, F(2,18)
= 8.10, MSB - 1,623.96, p < .01. On average, movement time
decreased as die target size increased (i.e., lower index of
difficulty; see Fitts, 1954). Movement time in the experimental
condition was not affected to the same extent by the final
target size compared to the control condition, ahhough a
linear trend was still apparent. As shown in Table 1, partici-
pants took longer to complete their movements to the large
target in the experimental situation than they did in the
control condition. In contrast, mean movement time for the
small and medium targets did not vary as a function of
experimental treatment.
Ernr measures. Analysis of constant error yielded a main effect
for Target, F(2,18) = 17.34, MSB = 5.93, p < .001, as well as
Condition x Target, F(2,18) = 7.53, MSB = 3.46, p < .01 and
Target x Block, F(2,18) = 5.76, MSB = 1.34,/> < .02, interac-
tions. As anticipated, the size of the target influenced accu-
racy. Constant error for the krge target was greater than that
for the small and medium targets which did not differ
significandy from one anodier. The Condition x Target
interaction indicated that, when die target size increased,
participants were more accurate for experimental trials dian
control trials. Presumably, the amount of error was reduced
during diese trials because participants had originally prepared
dieir movements to meet the more stringent accuracy de-
mands of the medium target. Although there was always slight
undershooting of the target centre, constant error did not vary
as a function of experimental condition for either the small or
medium targets. The Target x Block interaction indicated
that, during the second block of trials, participants became
more adept at aiming to the centre of the large target.
Analysis of variable error revealed only a main effect for
167
Target, F(2,18) = 5.02, MSB = 19.43,/> < .02, indicating that
variability increased with target size regardless of experimental
condition. The non significant finding for Condition
F(l,9) < 1, MSB = 13.70, suggested that target perturbations
did not affect aiming consistency. Thus, participants termi-
nated their movements in a manner consistent with the
boundaries of the end target. A Target x Block interaction,
F(2,18) = 3.58, MSB = 3.83,p < .05, indicated that participants
became less variable during die second block of trials for the
large and small target. Variability for the medium target did
not change as a function of block.
Peak velocity. To help identify the locus of the target effects, as
well as die interaction between experimental condition and
target size for movement time, peak velocity and die timing
characteristics of the movement trajectories were examined.
Analysis of peak velocity revealed a main effect for Target,
F(2,18) = 4.08, MSB = 12,747.01, p < .04, as well as a Condi-
tion x Target interaction, F(2,18) = 4.84, MSB = 12,628.21,
p < .03. The peak velocities achieved when aiming toward
targets in the experimental condition were essentially die
same, whereas in die control condition, participants demon-
strated a linear increase in velocity widi target size. These
findings suggest that peak velocity was programmed prior to
movement initiation and was not modified during perturbed
trials.
Time to peak velocity. Analysis of the time taken to reach peak
velocity revealed a main effect of Target, F(2,18) = 3.96,
MSB = 755.56, p < .04. On average, participants took less time
to achieve peak velocity when moving to a large target
(small =189 ms; medium =190 ms; krge 185 = ms).
Time after peak velocity. Given the absence of a target size
influence on peak velocity in the perturbation conditions and
the very minor impact on time to peak velocity, it was
deduced diat the influence of target size on movement time
was attributed to die interval after peak velocity. Analysis of
movement time spent after peak velocity yielded a main effect
for Target, F(2,18) = 84.25, MSB = 1,909.89, p < .001, and a
Condition x Target interaction, F(2,18) = 6.06, MSB =
1,728.51,p < .01. The interaction indicated diat a perturbation
to die small target resulted in less time following peak velocity
dian its corresponding control condition, while a perturbation
to a large target resulted in an increased time following peak
velocity when compared to its control counterpart. Aldiough
the control and perturbation conditions differed significandy,
it is apparent in Table 1 that participants modified dieir
movement trajectories during perturbation trials to account
for changes in target size.
Corrective submovements. Typically, at least some of the time after
peak velocity may be spent making time-consuming correc-
168
tions to the movement trajectory on the basis of response-
produced feedback. Examination of secondary/corrective
modifications revealed only a main effect for Target, F(2,18)
= 9.24, MSB = 0.09, p < .01. On average, a smaller target size
resulted in an increased number of movement corrections.
The absence of a main effect for condition, F(l,9) < 1, MSB =
0.18, reflected the finding that participants made as many
modifications to their movement trajectories when moving to
targets in the experimental and control conditions.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the relative
importance of prior planning and the on-line use of afferent
information during movement execution in the control of
goal-directed aiming movements. Specifically, we were
interested in determining whether the duration, accuracy, and
kinematics of a movement are determined entirely prior to
movement initiation, or whether a performer is able to adapt
his or her movement en route to a target when unexpectedly
provided with new accuracy constraints. In addition, we
hoped to determine whether changes in target size would
affect either the initial impulse toward the target (i.e., rapid
reprogramming), or what is normally considered to be the
corrective phase of the movement (i.e., time after peak
velocity; the number of discontinuities in deceleration), or
both.
In terms of the performance data, movement time in all
conditions was determined more by the final target size than
by its initial characteristics. This finding is inconsistent with
strong central models of limb control, which would predict
movement time values based on the original target character-
istics only. Although final target size influenced movement
time to a larger degree than initial target size, the initial
impulse of a movement appeared to be programmed to meet
aiming constraints of the original target. In fact, peak velocity
was relatively unaffected by changes in target characteristics
that occurred immediately following movement initiation.
This is consistent with the notion that the initial phase of a
movement is controlled centrally and operates without the aid
of peripheral sources of information including response-
produced feedback (i.e., Beggs & Howarth, 1970; Carlton,
1981; Woodworm, 1899).
In spite of an initial impulse that was sometimes inappro-
priate for the optimization of speed and accuracy due to the
unexpected perturbations, participants achieved movement
time values consistent with the final target size while hitting
the target. As stated previously (Chua & Elliott, 1993; Elliott
et al., 1991,1995,1997,1998), it is the time after completion
of the primary movement impulse, and before or during
secondary/corrective movements, that vision may have its
greatest influence on movement accuracy. Not surprisingly
then, in the current experiment the time after peak velocity
was reflective of the final target size. Thus, even though the
initial submovement may have been prepared "inappropri-
Heath, Hodges, Chua, and Elliott
ately" during perturbed trials, participants were able to utilize
visual information in the later stages of a movement to meet
the demands of the new target characteristics.
Because the trajectory characteristics are strongly influ-
enced by the final target size, there is strong support for on-
line visual regulation of rapid goal-directed movements, at
least during the final portion of the movement trajectory.
These findings are inconsistent with programmed models of
manual aiming which stress the importance of prior planning
and diminish the importance of on-line visual processing
during an aiming movement (Plamondon, 1995a, 1995b;
Schmidt etal., 1979).
Experiment 2
In Experiment 1, we created a situation in which the target
constraints during movement preparation were sometimes
different than those during movement execution. While
movement preparation may not always have been optimal for
the optimization of speed and accuracy, the centre of the
medium, small, and large target remained in the same location,
affording a movement of the same amplitude. Presumably this
created a situation that may have forced participants to brake
their movements more intensely over a shorter period of time
when faced with a larger target during execution, and less
intensely over a longer period of time when the target became
smaller. These adjustments in deceleration as well as discrete
changes in acceleration/deceleration (i.e., secondary zero-
crossings) would serve to make end-point variability conform
to the new target boundaries.
In Experiment 2, we employed a target perturbation
designed to make the amplitude of the original movement
inappropriate for target acquisition. During experimental trial
blocks, participants prepared for exactly the same target as in
Experiment 1 (i.e., the medium target). On 24% of the trials,
rather than becoming bigger or smaller on movement
initiation, the target moved closer to, or further away from die
home position. We expected this change in movement
amplitude to create a situation in which the initial impulse
would be either too large or too small for target acquisition.
Our goal was to once again determine whether or not
participants would be able to adjust for this perturbation en
route to the target, and if so, to determine how on-line
control of movement trajectories are accomplished.
METHOD
Participants. Ten volunteers from the McMaster university
community (6 men, 4 women) ranging in age from 23 to 47
years volunteered to participate in this research project. Nine
of the 10 participants had also participated in Experiment 1.
Apparatus and task. The apparatus and general aiming proce-
dures were the same as in Experiment 1. What differed
between experiments was the nature of the target perturba-
tion. In Experiment 2, perturbations involved a change in
On-line Control of Rapid Aiming Movements 169

TABLE 2
Mean Movement Time (ms), Constant Error (mm), Variable Error (mm), Peak Velocity (mm/s), Time To Peak Velocity (ms), Time After Peak Velocity (ms),
and Corrective Submovements as a Function of Condition, Target, and Block in Experiment 2

Dependent Variable/ Experimental Condition Control Condition

Block
near middle far near middle far

Movement Time
Block 1 593 623 679 584 580 613
Block 2 622 619 698 568 582 604

Constant Error
Block 1 0.74 6.72 -3.12 -1.76 6.81 -.82
Block 2 -.78 7.26 -1.77 -1.64 7.08 -.45

Variable Error
Block 1 4.98 4.94 3.93 3.18 3.08 3.12
Block 2 4.27 3.47 3.19 3.33 4.13 3.44

Peak Velocity
Block 1 660 660 676 611 680 710
Block 2 648 655 655 634 658 709

Time to Peak Velocity

Block 1 210 210 206 209 213 218
Block 2 218 215 220 204 216 226

Time After Peak Velocity

Block 1 382 412 472 374 366 395
Block 2 403 403 477 364 364 378

Number of Corrections
Block 1 1.16 1.09 1.27 1.03 0.89 0.98
Block 2 1.20 1.12 1.37 1.08 0.89 1.04

movement amplitude, rather than a change in target size as
was the case in Experiment 1. Therefore, in the experimental
condition, 76% of the trials were not perturbed, and move-
ment amplitude was constant (middle target). The remaining
24% of the trials were evenly divided between the two
perturbations. In one case, the amplitude was decreased on
movement initiation by moving the target 1.5 cm closer to the
home position (near target). In the second case, the amplitude
was increased, resulting in a new target position 1.5 cm
further than the original target (far target). Therefore the three
movement amplitudes were 11.5 cm, 13 cm, and 14.5 cm.
Target width remained constant at 1.5 cm.4
Procedure. Upon completion of the experimental trials, partici-
pants were required to complete two blocks of control trials.
In contrast to Experiment 1, 72 control trials, which consisted
of non-perturbed movements to each target amplitude, were
administered. Thus, there were 12 trials per block instead of
Index of difficulty varied from Experiment 1 to Experiment 2. This was
due to the distance for which the computer monitor could accommodate
displacement of the target in the Y axis. The indices of difficulty for the
near, middle, and far targets in Experiment 2 were 3.9, 4.1, and 4.2 bits,
respectively.
the 10 used in Experiment I.5 All other experimental and data
reduction procedures replicated those of Experiment 1.
RESULTS
The variables and analyses employed in Experiment 2 were
the same as those used in Experiment 1. The mean values for
each level of experimental treatment and dependent measure
are presented in Table 2.
Movement time. Analysis of mean movement time revealed main
effects for Condition, F(l,9) = 11.91, MSB = 6,360.87,/> < .01,
and Target, F(2,18) = 9.81, MSB = 3,752.92, p < .001. On
average, the duration of movements in the experimental
condition (639 ms) were longer than those in the control
condition (589 ms). The prolonged movement time for
experimental trials may be reflective of participants slowing
their movements in response to the uncertainty of target
location. Regardless of the experimental condition, partici-
pants took longer to complete their movements as movement
amplitude increased. As is apparent in Table 2, the difference
Twelve control trials per block were employed in Experiment 2 to equate
the proportion of near and far target perturbations in the two experimen-
tal conditions.
170
between the original middle target and the far target location
was greater than the difference between the middle and near
location (cf. Fitts, 1954).
Error measures. As in Experiment 1, analysis of constant error
revealed a main effect for Target, F(2,18) = 236.31,
MSB = 3.92,^> < .001, a two-way interaction involving Condi-
tion and Target, F(2,18) = 4.69, MSB = 4.80, p < .03, and a
three-way interaction of Condition, Target and Block,
F(2,18) = 5.21, MSB = 1.58,/> < .02. The Condition x Target
interaction indicated that participants were more accurate
aiming to the near target during the experimental trials as
opposed to control trials (experimental = -0.8 mm, control
= -1.7 mm). In contrast, participants were more accurate
during control trials when aiming to the far target (experimen-
tal = -2.5 mm, control — -1.1 mm). Accuracy to the middle
target did not differ as a function of experimental conditions,
and in both cases the endpoint was well short of the target
centre (experimental = -7.0 mm, control = -6.9 mm). The
accuracy differences between the near and far targets in the
two experimental conditions may relate to the distance
between the target and cursor at the end of the primary
submovement. We have demonstrated elsewhere (i.e., Elliott
et al., 1997) that in order to minimize the necessity for time-
consuming reversals in movement trajectories, participants
may adopt a strategy in which the primary submovement
generally undershoots the target. If necessary, a secondary
acceleration is employed to bring the limb onto the target.
This movement strategy may have led to greater accuracy
when the middle target was perturbed to the near position, as
the primary submovement for the middle target was roughly
equivalent to the end location of the near target. The three-
way interaction simply indicated that during the second block
of trials, participants were more accurate aiming to the near
target during perturbed trials then to the same target during
control trials. Additionally, during perturbed trials, aiming
accuracy to the far target increased from block one to
block two.
Analysis of variable error did not reveal any significant
main effects or interactions. The absence of main effects for
Condition and Target (ps > 0.10) indicated that the consis-
tency of movement endpoints was unaffected by the uncer-
tainty of movement amplitude, or by the actual movement
amplitude.
Peak velocity. Similar to Experiment 1, analysis of peak velocity
yielded a main effect for Target, F(2,18) = 50.16,
MSB = 489.32, p < .001, as well as a Condition x Target
interaction, F(2,18) = 13.31, MSB = 1,062.87, p < .01. The
interaction demonstrated that the scaling of peak velocity was
primarily affected by the initial location of the target. Thus,
the initial ballistic phase of the movement remained invariant
despite a change in target amplitude at the onset of
movement.
Heath, Hodges, Chua, and Elliott
Time to peak velocity. Analysis of the time taken to achieve peak
velocity revealed a main effect for Target, F(2,18) = 5.74,
MSB = 90.31, p < .02, and a Condition x Target interaction,
F(2,18) = 7.24, MSB = 86.03, p < .01. In the experimental
condition, participants achieved peak velocity at similar times
regardless of final target size (near = 215 ms, middle = 213
ms, far = 214 ms). In contrast, during the control situation
there was a linear increase in the time taken to achieve peak
velocity with movement amplitude (near = 207 ms, middle =
215ms, far = 222ms).
Time after peak velocity. Analysis of the time after peak velocity
revealed main effects for Condition, F(l,9) = 17.30,
MSB - 4,582.09, p < .05, Target, F(2,18) = 7.52, MSB =
3,094.22,p < .01, as well as a Condition x Target interaction,
F(2,18) = 4.11, MSB = 2,636.52, p < .05. The interaction
indicated that the time after peak velocity was significantly
greater during experimental trials, although both conditions
showed that time after peak velocity increased with amplitude.
As was the case for movement time, time after peak velocity
was less during a near target perturbation and greater for a far
target perturbation in comparison to their respective control
counterparts.
Corrective submovements. To further understand why participants
required more time after peak velocity to complete a move-
ment, analysis of the mean number of corrective movements
was conducted. As might be expected, participants made
more corrections in the experimental trials when compared to
control trials, F(l,9) = 10.43, MSB = 0.13, p < .02. When
compared to Experiment 1, more corrective movements were
made when the amplitude of the movement was perturbed, in
spite of the fact that the differences between the accuracy
constraints employed in Experiment 2 were less than that of
Experiment 1. Although the number of corrections was
greater in Experiment 2, the mean number of corrections for
each target location and experimental condition indicated that
participants engaged in visual processing kte in the movement
in order to meet the changing characteristics of the target.
DISCUSSION
The goal of this study was to determine the nature of move-
ment regulation during a rapid goal-directed aiming move-
ment in which the spatial location (movement amplitude) of
a target is perturbed upon movement initiation. Based on the
findings from Experiment 1, we hypothesized that the
primary movement would be prepared to meet the constraints
of the initial target, and would remain invariant in the pres-
ence of a perturbation. In contrast, secondary/corrective
submovements based on visual information about the target
and changes in target location would be rapidly processed in
order to achieve a high degree of aiming accuracy and
consistency.
Movement time data indicated that participants •were slower
On-line Control of Rapid Aiming Movements
in the experimental condition compared to the control
condition. These movement time results were somewhat
surprising when considering that the speed-accuracy con-
straints used in Experiment 2 -were smaller than Experiment 1,
in which a significant main effect for condition was not
evident. However, these results may be belter understood
through an examination of the movement kinematics. Specifi-
cally, our findings show that, like Experiment 1, the duration
and magnitude of the primary movement impulse was pre-
planned and remained invariant in spite of changes in the
target's spatial location. Once again, it was during the time after
peak velocity that participants adapted to the target perturba-
tion. In contrast to Experiment 1, participants did not rapidly
adjust to target perturbations, suggesting that perturbing the
spatial location of a target precipitated a greater number of
time-consuming modifications to the movement trajectory. In
support of this view, the mean number of corrections in
Experiment 2 (1.1) was proportionately higher than Experi-
ment 1 (0.8). Participants may have adopted a strategy of
deliberately slowing their movements in experimental trials,
where visual information in the latter stages of the movement
trajectory would be more effective for increasing aiming
accuracy (see also Carlton, 1981; Chua & Elliott, 1993).
In summary, the results of Experiment 2 support the
notion of a two-component model for rapid goal-directed
aiming movements (i.e., Carlton, 1981; Woodworth, 1899),
whereby visual information in die latter half of die movement
is used to make error-reducing adjustments. Further, it
appears that adapting to the spatial location of a target is more
time-consuming and perhaps more demanding than adapting
to a change in target size.
General Discussion
A longstanding issue in the control of goal-directed limb
movements has been whether movement is continuously
regulated based on afferent information, is prepared entirely
in advance of initiation, or whether control is based on a
combination of preplanned and current control processes. A
recent model to account for speed-accuracy trade-offs and
kinematic characteristics of goal-directed movements has
been put forward by Plamondon (1995a, 1995b; Plamondon
& Alimi, 1997). A prominent feature of Plamondon's kine-
matic theory is its position on the role of feedback in the
control of movement. Specifically, the kinematic theory holds
that target-directed movements are executed without the use
of feedback for movement regulation. The role of feedback
is limited to providing information necessary to prepare a
movement, whether the movement is the primary movement,
or the movement is a new movement superimposed on the
original one. Therefore, the movement itself is executed in a
programmed manner. In essence, die kinematic theory
proposes that feedback can play a role in the preparation of
movement but not in the on-line regulation of the movement.
The purpose of the experiments reported here was to
171
determine die nature of limb control under situations in
which new information pertaining to the movement goal is
made available during the onset of a movement. The presen-
tation of this information presumably creates a requirement
to modify the originally planned movement trajectory. This
allowed us to examine the relative importance of prior
planning and the on-line use of afferent information during
movement execution in die control of target-directed limb
movements.
Several salient features in the present set of results speak
to die nature of limb control. In particular, examination of the
movement kinematics revealed that the initial portion of the
movement trajectory was sensitive to the initial characteristics
of the target (i.e., its size and location) and was largely
uninfluenced by the changes that occurred at the onset of
movement. The impact of the new target information was
seen primarily in the latter part of the trajectory, during which
evidence of modifications to the movement was observed.
Presumably the changes seen later in the movement reflected
on-line regulation of die movement based on the new visual
information that had become available. This pattern of results
is consistent with two-component models of limb control in
which movement modifications are made during the latter
phase of die movement (i.e., Woodworth, 1899). These results
would also be consistent if one takes into account the
constraints of visual processing delays (see Cadton, 1992).
The presence of such system delays would suggest that
information presented early in the trajectory could not be
utilized until later in the trajectory. These findings suggest that
new visual information can be readily incorporated into an
ongoing movement.
It may be argued that our observations and support for a
two-component model of limb control may be an artifact of
the given task context. That is, we created a movement
situation which essentially necessitated diat adjustments be
made to the initial movement. Therefore, it is not surprising
that we observed modifications being made to the primary
movement trajectory. Although it is certainly the case that
adjustments were made as a direct response to the perturba-
tion of the target (i.e., the lengthening of movement time in
Experiment 2), we also observed evidence of regulatory
processes even when the target characteristics remained
invariant. Specifically, secondary submovements, taken as
evidence of corrective modifications (cf., Plamondon & Alitni,
1997), were also present during trials in which the target was
not changed. In these situations, planned models, like the
kinematic theory (Plamondon & Alimi, 1997), should hold.
However, die data point toward ongoing, feedback-based
regulation of the movement.
On a related note, the kinematic theory allows for a
movement trajectory to be modified should there be a
requirement to do so. Such a correction would come in the
form of a new, discrete, planned movement that is prepared
and superimposed on die previous movement. According to
172
Plamondon (Plamondon & Alimi, 1997), this corrective
movement would be prepared on die basis of feedback during
the primary movement but carried out to completion without
furdier utilization of feedback. Given the constraints of
feedback delays in the system, as mentioned above, such a
control process would seem to imply that feedback and other
afferent information be monitored during the movement.
And should that information indicate a need to change the
movement trajectory, then it is used to do so. Thus, it seems
that a distinction needs to be made between the on-line
monitoring of feedback versus the on-line utilization of that
feedback. It seems possible that visual information about the
movement can be monitored continuously during a move-
ment, but only utilized to effect modifications should the
need arise. Otherwise, a movement could go unmodified with
little or no evidence of adjustments. At present, it seems that
the empirical distinction between whether a target-directed
movement is executed in a planned manner or is regulated
based on feedback and odier environmental events, is based
on the presence or absence of trajectory modifications. Such
a distinction would seem to capture whether or not feedback
has been used in the regulation of the movement, but would
be less definitive about whether or not feedback and other
afferent information has been monitored.
Therefore, on the basis of feedback utilization, as ex-
pressed through trajectory modifications, our present findings
suggest that feedback-based regulation occurs not only when
there is a clear requirement to modify a movement trajectory
(as feedback-based models and the models such as the
kinematic theory would predict), but also during the execution
of the movement in the absence of any change in the move-
ment goal (in contrast to predictions by programmed models).
Utilization of feedback, therefore, not only plays a role in the
preparation of a movement, but also in the execution and
guidance of the movement.
This research was supported by a postgraduate scholarship to
Matthew Heath and grants to Romeo Chua and Digby Elliott by
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.
Correspondence should be addressed to the first author: Matthew
Heath, Department of Kinesiology, University Of Waterloo,
Waterloo, ON N2L3G1 (e-mail: mdheath@healthy.uwaterloo.ca).
References
Abrams, R. A., Meyer, D. E., & Kornblum, S. (1990). Oculomotor
control in rapid aimed limb movements. Journal of Experimental
Psychology, Human Perception and Performance, 16, 248-267.
Adams, J. A. (1971). A closed-loop theory of motor learning. Journal
of Motor Behavior, 3, 111-150.
Beggs, W. D. A., & Howarth, C. I. (1970). Movement control in a
repetitive task. Nature, 225, 752-753.
Carlton, L. G. (1979). Control processes in the production of discrete
aiming responses. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 5, 115-124.
Carlton, L. G. (1981). Visual information: The control of aiming
Heath, Hodges, Chua, and Elliott
movements. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 33A, 87-93.
Carlton, L. G. (1992). Visual processing time and the control of
movement. In L. Proteau and D. Elliott (Eds.) Vision and motor
control (pp. 3-31). Amsterdam: North Holland.
Chua, R., & Elliott, D. (1993). Visual regulation of manual aiming.
Human Movement Science, 12, 365-401.
Grossman, E. R. F. W., & Goodeve, P. J. (1983). Feedback control of
hand-movement and Fitts' law. Paper presented at the meeting of
the Experimental Psychology Society, Oxford, July 1963. Pub-
lished in QuarterlyJournaloj"Experimental Psycho logy, )5A, 251-278.
Elliott, D., & Allard, F. (1985). The utilization of visual feedback
information during rapid pointing movements. Quarterly Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 37A, 407-425.
Elliott, D., Carson, R. G., Goodman, D., & Chua, R. (1991). Discrete
vs. continuous visual control of manual aiming. Human Movement
Science, 10, 393-418.
Elliott, D., Chua, R., Pollock, B. J., & Lyons, J. (1995). Optimizing
the use of vision in manual aiming: The role of practice. Quarterly
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48A, 72-83.
Elliott, D., Heath, M., Binsted, G., Ricker, K. L., Roy, E. A., & Chua,
R. (1998) Goal directed aiming: Correcting aforce specification error o/ith
the right and left hand. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Elliott, D., Lyons, J., & Dyson, K. (1997). Rescaling an acquired
discrete aiming movement: Specific or general motor learning?
Human Movement Science, 16, 81-96.
Fitts, P. M. (1954). The information capacity of the human motor
system in controlling the amplitude of movement. Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 47, 381-391.
Fitts, P. M., & Peterson, J. R. (1964). Information capacity of discrete
motor responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67, 103-112.
Heath, M., Roy, E. A., & Weir, P. L. (1998). Visual-motor integration of
unexpected sensory events in young and elderly participants: A. kinematic
analysis. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Keele, S. W., & Posner, M. I. (1968). Processing of visual feedback in
rapid movement. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 77,155-158.
Langolf, G. D., Chaffin, D. B., & Foulke, J. A. (1976). An investiga-
tion of Fitts' law using a wide range of movement amplitudes.
Journal of Motor Behavior, 8, 113-128.
MacKenzie, C. L., Marteniuk, R. G., Dugas, C., Liske, D., &
Eickmeier, B. (1987). Three dimensional movement trajectory in
a Fitts' task: Implications for control. Quarteriy Journal of Experimen-
tal Psychology, 39A, 629-647.
Meyer, D. E., Abrams, R. A., Kornblum, S., Wright, C. E., & Smith,
J. E. K. (1988). Optimality in human motor performance: Ideal
control of rapid aimed movements. Psychological Reviea>, 95,
340-370.
Plamondon, R. (1995a). A kinematic theory of rapid human move-
ments: 1. Movement representation and generation. Biological
Cybernetics, 72, 295-307.
Plamondon, R. (1995b). A kinematic theory of rapid human move-
ments: 2. Movement time and control. Biologfcal Cybernetics, 72,
309-320.
Plamondon, R., & Alimi, A. M. (1997). Speed/accuracy trade-offs in
target directed movements. Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
Sommaire
20,279-349.
Schmidt, R. A., Zela2nik, H. N., Hawkins, B., Frank, J. S., & Quinn,
J. T. (1979). Motor-output variability: A theory for the accuracy
of rapid motor acts. Psychological Review, 86, 415-451.
Starkes, J. L., & Allard, F. (1993). Cognitive issues in motor expertise.
Amsterdam: North-Holland,
van Donkelaar, P., & Franks, I. M. (1991). The effects of changing
movement velocity and complexity on response preparation.
Evidence from latency, kinematic and EMG measures. Experimental
Brain Research, 54,121-132.
Sommaire
La question a savok comment les mouvements de visee sont
controles suscite une certaine controverse depuis k publica-
tion des etudes primordiales de Woodworth (1899). En
general, deux theories, soit celle de k pknification et celle de
la retroaction, ont etc appliquees au controle de ce type de
mouvement. Les theories du controle central et du controle
pknifie du mouvement supposent qu'une fois le mouvement
amorce, son execution se fait suivant le pkn central esquisse
durant Porganisation du mouvement et s'acheve sans 1'aide
des sources peripheriques de retroaction afferente (p. ex.
Plamondon, 1995a). Par opposition, les modeles fondes sur
la retroaction, comme ceux que proposait Woodworth,
supposent que les mouvement diriges simples se composent
d'une combinaison de processus centraux et retroactifs. Plus
precisement, une impulsion initiale est programmee avant que
le mouvement ne commence a rapprocher 1'effecteur terminal
de k cible. Le controle de 1'influx est evoque pour corriger les
erreurs dans k trajectoke initiale du mouvement si k retroac-
tion produite par k reponse indique une erreur dans la visee
de depart. Le but de cette recherche etait d'evaluer les theories
susmentionnees du controle du mouvement et de determiner
Pimportance relative de la pknification preakble et de
Putilisation en direct de retroaction afferente.
Les deux experiences consistaient a creer une situation ou
de nouvelles donnees visuelles concernant le but du mouve-
ment (c.-a-d. k cible) etaient presentees au sujet une fois le
Revue canadienne de psychologic experimentale, 1998, 52:4, 173
173
Wallace, S. A., & Newell, K. M. (1983). Visual control of discrete
aiming movements. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 35A,
311-321.
Winter, D. A. (1990). Biomechanics and motor control of human movement.
Montreal: Wiley.
Woodworth, R. S. (1899). The accuracy of voluntary movement.
PsychologicalReview, 3, (Monograph Supplement), 1-119.
Date of acceptance: October 7, 1998
mouvement amorce. Les sujets devaient executer des mouve-
ments discrets de visee d'une cible unique au moyen d'une
tablette graphique reliee a un dispositif de visee virtuelle (vok
k figure 1). Au cours de k premiere experience, une perturba-
tion consistant en un changement imprevu de k largeur de k
cible se produisait; lors de k deuxieme experience, il s'agissait
d'un changement dans Pamplitude du mouvement.
L'hypothese posee est que, si les mouvements de visee sont
entierement planifies a Pavance, sans mises a jour basees sur
la retroaction, le fait de modifier k largeur de la cible ou
Pamplitude du mouvement devrait avok peu d'effet sur la
cinematique de la trajectoke du mouvement. Par ailleurs, les
modeles fondes sur Pimportance de k retroaction visuelle en
dkect predisent que la mecanique du mouvement serait
influencee par les nouveaux parametres de visee.
De facon generate, les resultats de Petude demontrent que,
meme si k vitesse de pointe est determinee avant Pamorce du
mouvement, pour permettre de produke k vitesse et la
precision exigees par k largeur initiale de k cible ou
Pamplitude initiale du mouvement, c'est durant k deceleration
que les sujets modifient la trajectoke du mouvement pour
s'ajuster aux nouveaux parametres de visee. Ces donnees
laissent croke que k surveilknce d'information visuelle en
dkect permet de modifier k deuxieme moitie de k trajectoke
d'un mouvement.