Studenka Breanna E, Zelaznik Howard N
Department of Kinesiology, the Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA.
J Mot Behav. 2011;43(3):185-91. doi: 10.1080/00222895.2011.555796.
Differences in timing control processes between tapping and circle drawing have been extensively documented during continuation timing. Differences between event and emergent control processes have also been documented for synchronization timing using emergent tasks that have minimal event-related information. However, it is not known whether the original circle-drawing task also behaves differently than tapping during synchronization. In this experiment, 10 participants performed a table-tapping and a continuous circle-drawing task to an auditory metronome. Synchronization performance was assessed via the value and variability of asynchronies. Synchronization was substantially more difficult in circle drawing than in tapping. Participants drawing timed circles exhibited drift in synchronization error and did not maintain a consistent phase relationship with the metronome. An analysis of temporal anchoring revealed that timing to the timing target was not more accurate than timing to other locations on the circle trajectory. The authors conclude that participants were not able to synchronize movement with metronome tones in the circle-drawing task despite other findings that cyclical tasks do exhibit auditory motor synchronization, because the circle-drawing task is unique and absent of event and cycle position information.
在持续计时过程中，敲击和画圈之间的时间控制过程差异已得到广泛记录。对于使用事件相关信息极少的突发任务进行同步计时，事件控制过程和突发控制过程之间的差异也已得到记录。然而，尚不清楚在同步过程中，原始的画圈任务与敲击任务的表现是否也有所不同。在本实验中，10名参与者根据听觉节拍器进行桌面敲击和持续画圈任务。通过异步的数值和变异性来评估同步表现。画圈的同步比敲击要困难得多。画定时圆圈的参与者在同步误差上表现出漂移，并且没有与节拍器保持一致的相位关系。对时间锚定的分析表明，相对于画圈轨迹上的其他位置，参与者对计时目标的计时并不更准确。作者得出结论，尽管有其他研究发现周期性任务确实表现出听觉运动同步，但在画圈任务中，参与者无法使动作与节拍器音调同步，因为画圈任务是独特的，且缺乏事件和周期位置信息。
