People learn a two-stage control for faster locomotor interception
-
Published:2023-04-21
Issue:1
Volume:88
Page:167-186
-
ISSN:0340-0727
-
Container-title:Psychological Research
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Psychological Research
Author:
Zhao HuaiyongORCID, Straub DominikORCID, Rothkopf Constantin A.ORCID
Abstract
AbstractPeople can use the constant target-heading (CTH) strategy or the constant bearing (CB) strategy to guide their locomotor interception. But it is still unclear whether people can learn new interception behavior. Here, we investigated how people learn to adjust their steering to intercept targets faster. Participants steered a car to intercept a moving target in a virtual environment similar to a natural open field. Their baseline interceptions were better accounted for by the CTH strategy. After five learning sessions across multiple days, in which participants received feedback about their interception durations, they adopted a two-stage control: a quick initial burst of turning accompanied by an increase of the target-heading angle during early interception was followed by significantly less turning with small changes in target-heading angle during late interception. The target’s bearing angle did not only show this two-stage pattern but also changed comparatively little during late interception, leaving it unclear which strategy participants had adopted. In a following test session, the two-stage pattern of participants’ turning adjustment and the target-heading angle transferred to new target conditions and a new environment without visual information about an allocentric reference frame, which should preclude participants from using the CB strategy. Indeed, the pattern of the target’s bearing angle did not transfer to all the new conditions. These results suggest that participants learned a two-stage control for faster interception: they learned to quickly increase the target-heading angle during early interception and subsequently follow the CTH strategy during late interception.
Funder
Technische Universität Darmstadt
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous),Developmental and Educational Psychology,Experimental and Cognitive Psychology,General Medicine
Reference46 articles.
1. Bastin, J., Craig, C., & Montagne, G. (2006). Prospective strategies underlie the control of interceptive actions. Human Movement Sciences, 25, 718–732. 2. Bastin, J., Jacobs, D. M., Morice, A. H. P., Craig, C., & Montagne, G. (2008). Testing the role of expansion in the prospective control of locomotion. Experimental Brain Research, 191, 301–312. 3. Belousov, B., Neumann, G., Rothkopf, C. A., & Peters, J. (2016). Catching heuristics are optimal control policies. Paper presented at the conference of Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), Barcelona, Spain. 4. Bootsma, R. J., & Van Wieringen, P. C. W. (1990). Timing an attacking forehand drive in table tennis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16, 21–29. 5. Bootsma, R. J., Houbiers, M. H. J., Whiting, H. T. A., & Van Wieringen, P. C. W. (1991). Acquiring an attacking forehand drive: The effects of static and dynamic environmental conditions. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 62, 276–284.
|
|