Manzone Joseph X, Taravati Saba, Neyedli Heather F, Welsh Timothy N
Faculty of Kinesiology and Physical Education, Centre for Motor Control, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Department of Kinesiology, School of Health and Human Performance, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2020 Dec;73(12):2197-2216. doi: 10.1177/1747021820940620. Epub 2020 Jul 22.
When presented with two different target-penalty configurations of similar maximum expected gain (MEG), participants prefer aiming to configurations with more advantageous spatial, rather than more advantageous gain parameters-perhaps due to the motor system's inherent prioritisation of spatial information during movements with high accuracy demands such as aiming. To test this hypothesis, participants in the present studies chose between target-penalty configurations via key presses to reduce the importance of spatial parameters of the response and performance-related feedback. Configurations varied in spatial (target-penalty region overlap) and gain parameters (negative penalty values) and could have similar or different MEG. Choices were made without prior aiming experience (Experiment 1), after aiming experience provided information of movement variability (Experiment 2), or after aiming experience provided information of movement variability and outcome feedback (Experiment 3). Overall, configurations with advantageous spatial or gain parameters were chosen equally (Both-Similar condition) in all experiments. However, average behaviour at the group level was not reflective of the behaviour of most individual participants with three subgroups emerging: those with a value preference, distance preference, or no preference. In Experiments 1 and 2, these individual differences cannot be explained by MEG differences between configurations or participants' movement variability, but these variables predicted choice behaviour in Experiment 3. Further in the Both-Different condition, participants only selected the larger MEG configuration at a level above chance when both variability and outcome information were given prior to the key press task (Experiment 3). In sum, the data indicate that prioritisation of spatial information did not emerge at the group level when performing key presses and more optimal behaviour emerged when information regarding movement variability and outcome feedback were given.
当面对两种具有相似最大预期增益（MEG）的不同目标-惩罚配置时，参与者更倾向于瞄准具有更有利空间配置的目标，而非具有更有利增益参数的目标——这可能是由于在诸如瞄准等对精度要求较高的运动过程中，运动系统对空间信息存在固有的优先处理机制。为了验证这一假设，本研究中的参与者通过按键在不同的目标-惩罚配置之间进行选择，以降低反应空间参数和与表现相关反馈的重要性。配置在空间（目标-惩罚区域重叠）和增益参数（负惩罚值）方面有所不同，并且可能具有相似或不同的MEG。选择是在没有先前瞄准经验的情况下进行的（实验1），在瞄准经验提供了运动变异性信息之后（实验2），或者在瞄准经验提供了运动变异性和结果反馈之后（实验3）。总体而言，在所有实验中，具有有利空间或增益参数的配置被同等选择（两者相似条件）。然而，在群体层面的平均行为并不能反映大多数个体参与者的行为，出现了三个亚组：那些具有值偏好、距离偏好或无偏好的参与者。在实验1和实验2中，这些个体差异无法通过配置之间的MEG差异或参与者的运动变异性来解释，但这些变量在实验3中预测了选择行为。进一步在两者不同的条件下，只有当在按键任务之前同时给出变异性和结果信息时，参与者才会在高于机会水平的情况下选择更大MEG的配置（实验3）。总之，数据表明，在执行按键操作时，空间信息的优先处理在群体层面并未出现，而当给出关于运动变异性和结果反馈的信息时，会出现更优的行为。
