What question did this study set out to answer?

To review behavioral evidence on goal-directed aiming and present a multiple-process model explaining how speed-accuracy dynamics, sensory expectations, and motor learning govern limb control.

January 1, 2010Psychological Bulletin

Goal-directed aiming: Two components but multiple processes.

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Authors

DEDigby ElliottLiverpool John Moores University SHSteve HansenNipissing University LGLawrence GriersonMcMaster University

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Review demonstrates dynamic sensorimotor mechanisms in healthy and clinical populations, highlighting how predictive planning and online sensory adjustments optimize movement accuracy.

Key Points

To review behavioral evidence on goal-directed aiming and present a multiple-process model explaining how speed-accuracy dynamics, sensory expectations, and motor learning govern limb control.
Synthesized behavioral literature evaluating voluntary movement control, extending Woodworth's classic two-component model of speed-accuracy trade-offs.
Evaluated dynamic motor planning, online trajectory corrections, and motor learning principles across developmental stages, healthy adults, and clinical cohorts (Down syndrome, Williams syndrome, autism spectrum disorder, and older adults).
Formulated a model showing that performers balance speed, accuracy, and energy costs by forming internal representations of expected sensory consequences to counter inherent neural-motor variability.
Resolved theoretical tensions between procedural and representational learning accounts by integrating feed-forward strategic planning with rapid sensory-guided online feedback.
Identified distinct breakdowns in perceptual-motor precision across special populations resulting from selective deficits in feed-forward estimation or online correction processes.

Cite This Study

Elliott et al. (2010) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69dee7f7210a0977fce95bda https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020958

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

January 1, 2010Psychological Bulletin

Goal-directed aiming: Two components but multiple processes.

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Authors

DEDigby ElliottLiverpool John Moores University SHSteve HansenNipissing University LGLawrence GriersonMcMaster University

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Review demonstrates dynamic sensorimotor mechanisms in healthy and clinical populations, highlighting how predictive planning and online sensory adjustments optimize movement accuracy.

Key Points

To review behavioral evidence on goal-directed aiming and present a multiple-process model explaining how speed-accuracy dynamics, sensory expectations, and motor learning govern limb control.
Synthesized behavioral literature evaluating voluntary movement control, extending Woodworth's classic two-component model of speed-accuracy trade-offs.
Evaluated dynamic motor planning, online trajectory corrections, and motor learning principles across developmental stages, healthy adults, and clinical cohorts (Down syndrome, Williams syndrome, autism spectrum disorder, and older adults).
Formulated a model showing that performers balance speed, accuracy, and energy costs by forming internal representations of expected sensory consequences to counter inherent neural-motor variability.
Resolved theoretical tensions between procedural and representational learning accounts by integrating feed-forward strategic planning with rapid sensory-guided online feedback.
Identified distinct breakdowns in perceptual-motor precision across special populations resulting from selective deficits in feed-forward estimation or online correction processes.

Cite This Study

Elliott et al. (2010) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69dee7f7210a0977fce95bda https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020958

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark