Sainburg Robert L, Mutha Pratik K
Dept. of Kinesiology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.
Motor Control. 2016 Apr;20(2):187-94. doi: 10.1123/mc.2015-0022. Epub 2015 Aug 27.
The target article (Smeets, Oostwoud Wijdenes, & Brenner, 2016) proposes that short latency responses to changes in target location during reaching reflect an unconscious, continuous, and incremental minimization of the distance between the hand and the target, which does not require detection of the change in target location. We, instead, propose that short-latency visuomotor responses invoke reflex- or startle-like mechanisms, an idea supported by evidence that such responses are both automatic and resistant to cognitive influences. In addition, the target article fails to address the biological underpinnings for the range of response latencies reported across the literature, including the circuits that might underlie the proposed sensorimotor loops. When considering the range of latencies reported in the literature, we propose that mechanisms grounded in neurophysiology should be more informative than the simple information processing perspective adopted by the target article.
目标文章（斯米茨、奥斯特沃德·维杰登斯和布伦纳，2016年）提出，在伸手够物过程中对目标位置变化的短潜伏期反应反映了手部与目标之间距离的无意识、持续且渐进的最小化，这并不需要检测目标位置的变化。相反，我们提出短潜伏期视觉运动反应调用了类似反射或惊吓的机制，这一观点得到了如下证据的支持：此类反应既是自动的，又不受认知影响。此外，目标文章未能探讨文献中报道的一系列反应潜伏期的生物学基础，包括可能构成所提出的感觉运动环路的神经回路。在考虑文献中报道的潜伏期范围时，我们提出基于神经生理学的机制应比目标文章所采用的简单信息处理观点更具启发性。
