Acta Psychologica 65 (1987) 181-191 181

North-Holland

THE EFFECTS OF MOVEMENT DISTANCE AND MOVEMENT

TIME ON VISUAL FEEDBACK PROCESSING
IN AIMED HAND MOVEMENTS *

Howard N. ZELAZNIK
Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA

Brian HAWKINS
Uniuersi~ of Colorado at Boulder, USA

Lorraine KISSELBURGH
Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA

Accepted November 1986

An experiment is reported that manipulated movement distance, movement time and the availabil-
ity of vision (Light-On versus Light-Off) on the accuracy of aimed hand movements. There was a
constant difference in spatial accuracy between Light-On and Light-off conditions as a function of
distance when the duration of the movement was 200 msec; when the duration of the aimed hand
movement was 400 or 600 msec the difference in spatial accuracy between Light-On and Light-Off
conditions increased as distance increased. These results were taken as support for a two-process
model of visual feedback processing in aimed hand movements, and provide converging evidence
for the rapid visual feedback processing results of Zelaznik, Hawkins, and Kisselburgh (1983).

Since the work of Keele of Posner (1968) and the work of Howarth
and colleagues (see Howarth and Beggs (1985) there has been a
renewed interest in the study of the time course of visual feedback
processing in aimed hand movements. In a large number of these
studies estimates of visual feedback processing time emerge from
examining the effects of visual feedback withdrawal, or distortion, and

* Special thanks to S. Monsell, K. Newell, and two anonymous reviewers for comments on
previous drafts of the present paper.
Requests for reprints should be sent to H.N. Zelaznik, Motor Behavior Laboratory, Dept. of
Physical Education, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA.

OOOl-6918/87/$3.50 0 1987, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. (North-Holland)

182 H. N. Zelumik et d. / Vimal fee&ad proce.csing

movement duration upon aimed hand movement accuracy (Carlton

1981; Howarth and Beggs 1985; Keele and Posner 1968; and Bowen
1980; Zelaznik et al. 1983).
Recent experiments by Zelaznik et al. (1983) suggest that visual
feedback processing time in aimed hand movements is on the order of
80 to 150 msec. In experiment 3 subjects produced aimed hand
movements in one of eight durations: 70, 150, 200, 250, 350, 450, 550,
and 650 msec. In the Light-Off conditions a series of trials were
performed in which the room illumination was extinguished coincident
with movement initiation, while in the Light-On conditions the room
illumination always remained on. In the 70-msec condition (actual MT
was 80 msec) there were no differences in spatial aiming accuracy, as
measured by RMSE in aiming in the major axis of motion, as a result
of the visual manipulation. However, for the 150- through 250-msec
conditions there was a constant difference in accuracy between Light-On
and Light-Off conditions, while from 350 to 650 msec the difference
between Light-On and Light-Off conditions increased as movement
time increased.
That the effect of the visual feedback manipulation was different in
the limited duration case (150-250 msec) compared to the longer
duration case (> 250 msec) suggested that there were two different
sources of visual feedback processing. In fact, Zelaznik et al. (1983)
speculated that there was a rapid, automatic visual feedback process
responsible for the limited duration data while the traditional attention
demanding intermittent corrections (Crossman and Goodeve 1983;
Howarth and Beggs 1985) operated in the longer duration case (see
Zelaznik et al. (1981) for additional evidence).
While this dual-process hypothesis concerning visual feedback
processing in aimed hand movements is appealing, additional evidence
in support of this hypothesis is warranted. We chose to manipulate
movement distance and movement time to examine their joint role in
determining spatial accuracy differences as a function of visual feed-
back. Support for a two-process hypothesis would be derived from data
indicating that the effects of movement distance on visual feedback
processing is dependent upon the movement time, such that limited
duration movements, behave differently than longer duration ones.
There is some preliminary evidence that movement distance does
affect visual feedback processing. Klapp (1975) has shown that move-
ments of 2 mm do not utilize vision compared to movements of 332
 H.N. Zelarnik et al. / Visual feedback processing 183

mm. Klapp did not control movement duration, and thus it is possible
the distance effects were mediated by changes in movement time. This
highlights a problem with most of the visual feedback processing
research, including our own (Zelaznik et al. 1983). If only one dimen-
sion is varied, such as movement time, then one is not sure as to
whether it is the movement time change per se or some concomitant
change in movement velocity that is mediating the observed effects.
It has been assumed that the limitation in processing visual feedback
is one of time. If enough time is available then subjects can utilize
feedback (see Schmidt and Russell 1972). However, this reasoning
seems to overlook the physics of corrections. Intuitively one can
imagine that movements possessing increased momentum (mass x
velocity) will be more resistant to perturbations. If one views a correc-
tion as a process that perturbs a limb from its predestined trajectory,
then the same amount of perturbation will have less of an effect on
higher momentum movements. Thus, it is possible that the minimum
time to process visual feedback, as investigated by Keele and Posner
(1968) and Zelaznik et al. (1983), was examining the minimum average
momentum that the visual feedback control system can overcome.
If the above reasoning is plausible then it is possible that if the
movement’s average velocity is large enough, even though there is
enough time to process visual feedback, the inertial properties of a
movement (as indexed by momentum) would be too large to permit the
predestined aimed hand movement trajectory to be altered by these
visual feedback processes. The present experiment provides a first-pass
test of this idea.
In the present experiment we examined visual feedback effects for
aimed hand movements of three durations, 200, 400, and 600 msec, and
for three movement distances, 10, 20, and 30 cm. Furthermore, there
are three combinations of distance and time (10-200, 20-400, and
30-600) that all have identical 50 cm/set average velocities. Thus, we
shall have a first approximation to the role of average velocity in visual
feedback effects on aimed hand movement accuracy.

Methods

Subjects

Nine right-handed, naive, undergraduate volunteers from Purdue University served

as subjects. None of the subjects was paid for their participation.
184 H. N. Zelaznik et al. / Visual feedback processing

Appuratus and task

A plywood board (90 X 40 cm) covered with white posterboard was secured to the
top of a long and narrow table. A paper clip, which was used to position the target
sheets (9 X 21 cm), was inserted into the board. On each sheet there was a target cross
formed by two 0.75-cm lines, 0.5 mm in width. The sheets were oriented on the board
so that the axes of the target were in line with the axes of the board. At the end of the
board, to the subject’s right, a microswitch was placed so that the actuating arm, when
released, was flush with the top of the board. A stop was placed under the arm of this
start switch so that the total switch excursion was 2 mm. Closing the switch (by raising
the arm) engaged a latching relay and a digital msec clock. A stylus (Archer # 274-270)
formed a circuit with a pad of wire gauze, sandwiched between the target sheet and the
target board. Prior to the movement, the tip of the stylus was positioned in a
depression on the actuating arm of the microswitch. When the sharpened tip of the
stylus cut through the paper target the circuit closed and disengaged the latching relay
to stop the msec clock, providing the movement time (MT) score. The home position
was 16.5 cm from the edge of the table top. The horizontal distance from this home
position to the subject’s right shoulder was 30 cm and the vertical distance was 22.5 cm.
The subject’s right elbow angle was approximately 90° prior to movement initiation.
The aiming movement was executed from right to left in the subject’s frontal plane.
The subject’s head and eyes were located directly in line with the target; thus the initial
arm position changed as a function of movement distance.
To control the availability of visual information, an incandescent lamp (40 watts,
decay time to 10% = 20 msec), which provided the only illumination in the testing
room. was wired via the latching relay. In this manner, the light could be extinguished
coincident with the lift of the stylus from the home key, and could be turned on
coincident with the contact of the stylus with the target board. A second parallel circuit
was controlled by the experimenter for the conditions in which the light remained on
throughout the trial.
The subject’s task was to produce an aimed hand movement that would land as
close as possible to the target cross and to achieve the MT goal. Movement distance,
MT, and visual feedback were manipulated across blocks of trials, so that for any given
trial block the subject was certain about the availability of visual feedback, MT goal
and location of the target.

Procedures

The subject was instructed that the task demanded both spatial and temporal
accuracy. After the experimenter answered any questions, and the subject gave his/her
informed consent, the trial block began. The subject was seated in front of the aiming
board so that the right shoulder was in line with the start microswitch. In all
conditions, the stylus was held with the right hand, and a trial began by depressing the
tip of the stylus in the actuating arm of the microswitch. The experimenter then said
‘ready’. The subject was instructed not to react to this command, but rather to initiate
the movement when prepared. All subjects initiated their movements within two
seconds following the ‘ready’ command. In the Light-Off conditions, the lamp was
 H. N. Zelaznik et al. / Visual feedback processing 185

extinguished coincident with the lift of the stylus from the home key, and remained off
until the stylus struck the surface of the aiming board. In the Light-On conditions the
lamp remained on throughout the movement. When the movement was completed, the
experimenter utilized a colored felt-tip pen to mark the small hole in the target sheet
produced by the stylus. Six colors were used in a fixed order so that a code was
generated for determining each trial’s data. Knowledge of results (KR) concerning MT
was provided after each trial. After receiving KR, subjects placed the stylus in the
home position to commence the next trial. The paper target sheet was replaced with a
new one every six trials. The intertrial interval was approximately eight seconds, and
the interval between changing target sheets was approximately 20 seconds.

Order and design

Subjects performed in all 18 conditions which were formed by crossing three levels
of movement distance (10, 20, and 30 cm), MT (200. 400, and 600 msec), and two levels
of visual feedback (Light-On and Light-Off). Three of the distance-time combinations,
10-200, 20-400, and 30-600 have an average velocity of 50 cm/set, allowing for a
limited examination of the role of average velocity in visual feedback processing.
On a given experimental session the subject performed within one distance-MT
combination for two blocks of 90 trials each, one in the Light-On and the other in the
Light-Off condition. A Latin square was utilized for the presentation of distance-time
combinations across subjects. Five subjects performed the Light-On condition for the
first block of each session, while the other four subjects performed the Light-Off
condition first. The nine testing sessions spanned not less than nine nor more than
twelve days. No subject performed two sessions in one day.

Results

Treatment of data

Spatial accuracy was measured with a two-dimensional digitizer (Numonics) accu-

rate to the nearest 0.2 mm interfaced with the University mainframe computer. We
only will report errors in distance, measured as the perpendicular distance from the
target with respect to the major axis of motion.
Trials l-30 were considered practice. Only trials 31-90 were included in the
analysis. The movement time analysis included all of the last 60 trials.

Movement time results

Fig. 1 presents the root mean square error (RMSE) in MT as a function of the goal
MT, distance and visual feedback conditions. It is clear that RMSE in timing error
decreases as the movement time decreases, f(2,16) = 57.52, p < 0.01. As expected the
relative timing error remains about 10 percent (Schmidt et al. 1978). There was no
 H. N. Zelarmk et al. / Visual feedback processrng

70-

60 -

50 -
G
5 40-
Ek-
----____
:
400
g 30-
_-a---__
200
-3
g__- ---

20 -

10 -

I I I
10 20 30
DISTANCE (cm)
Fig. 1. RMSE (msec) for movement time as a function of goal movement distance, movement time
and availability of vision (Light-On vs Light-Off).

effect of visual feedback upon timing accuracy, F(1,8) -C 1, and no interactions

between visual feedback and any of the other independent variables (all Fs < 1).
Table 1 presents the average MT for each condition, along with the number of trials
(out of 60) that were included in the spatial analysis. As seen in the table, there were
small, but non-significant differences in average MT between feedback conditions for
the 200- and 400-msec movements (Fs < l), but for the 600-msec conditions the
No-Vision condition’s MT was 574 msec compared to the 591 for the Vision condition.
F(1.16) = 9.6, p < 0.05).

Table 1
Average MT for all trials 31-90, and number of trials (Count) included in the ‘trimmed’ spatial
analysis. There was a maximum of 60 trials included.

Distance (cm) Vision Movement time (msec)

200 400 600

MT Count MT Count MT Count

10 On 210 40 396 38 589 46
Off 208 40 397 41 596 40

20 On 210 46 403 45 596 40

Off 209 37 397 49 580 37

30 On 215 42 402 41 590 46

Off 214 42 397 48 594 41
 H.N. Zelarnik et al. / Visual feedback processing 187

These small effects of feedback on movement duration cast doubt on the possibility
that subjects traded off temporal accuracy for spatial accuracy in a manner dependent
upon the availability of visual feedback. Thus, we are confident that the changes in
spatial accuracy to be discussed are not the result of concomitant changes in temporal
precision.

Spatial accuracy

Since we are concerned with the effects of particular movement durations, it is

important to choose trials that represent these durations. Accordingly, only trials that
had MT scores with errors less than or equal to 10% from the goal MT were included
for the spatial-accuracy analysis (Schmidt et al. 1978). Since average movement time
was unaffected by visual feedback, this selection process should not result in a different
distribution of MT scores across conditions. Furthermore inspection of table 1 shows
that about two-thirds of the trials (40) were included in the analysis at each condition.
Statistical analysis reveals that there were no effects of visual feedback, movement
time, movement distance, or any interactions among the three on the number of trials
included in the spatial analysis (all Fs < 1).
The left-hand panel of fig. 2 presents RMSE as a function of movement distance,
movement time, and visual feedback. As seen in the figure, the difference in spatial

MT (ms)
6-
- Ilght-on + 600
---- hght-off,/ 0 400
5-
0 200

4-

3-

2-

l-

DISTANCE (cm)
Fig. 2. The left hand panel displays RMSE (mm) for spatial accuracy as a function of goal
movement distance, movement time and availability of vision (Light-On vs Light-Off). The right
hand panel displays the difference in RMSE between Light-Off and Light-On condition as a
function of movement distance and movement time. A positive difference means that the
Light-Off condition produced more RMSE than Light-On.
188 H. N. Zeluznik et al. / Vi.wulfeedback proce.wing

accuracy between Light-On and Light-Off conditions increased as MT increased. This

observation was confirmed by the significant interaction between MT and visual
feedback, F = 34.47, df= 2,16. p < 0.01. Furthermore at each MT condition the
Light-On condition produced less error than the Light-Off (HSD = 0.512 mm, MSe =
0.2625, n = 9. p < 0.05).
There also was a significant effect of distance on aiming error, F = 6.96, df= 2.16.
p i 0.05, with aiming error increasing as distance increased. There were no interactions
between distance and feedback, distance and MT or between these three factors.
However, a finer analysis reveals that there might have been an interaction between
MT, distance and visual feedback.
The right-hand panel of fig. 2 depicts the difference in spatial accuracy between
Light-Off and Light-On conditions as a function of movement distance and time. The
figure indicates that for the 400- and 600-msec movements the spatial accuracy
differences as a function of vision increased as distance increased. The effect was not
observed in the 200-msec movements as there was a constant difference between
Light-On and Light-Off conditions with increasing movement distance.
A linear trend analysis was conducted on these difference scores to statistically test
these observations. As expected there was no linear trend in the 200-msec movements,
F = 0.00. df= 1,6. In the 400-msec condition the linear trend approached significance,
F = 3.23, p < 0.10, and in the 600-msec condition the trend was significant, F = 8.79,
p < 0.01.

Discussion

The major finding of the present experiment was that for 200-msec
movements the effect of removing visual information resulted in a
constant difference between Light-On and Light-Off conditions as
distance increased, while for 400-msec and certainly for 600-msec
movements as movement distance increased the difference in spatial
accuracy between sighted and unsighted aimed hand movement in-
creased. Thus, an independent variable, movement distance, affects
limited duration movements in one fashion, and longer duration move-
ments in another fashion. This result supports our previously stated
hypothesis (Zelaznik et al. 1983) that the processes responsible for the
limited duration feedback effects are of a different nature than those
for the longer duration case.
In our previous work (Zelaznik et al. 1983) we speculated that
limited duration feedback processing might be involved in ensuring
that the motor program executes as planned. In Schmidt’s terms (1976),
feedback processing in the limited duration case corrects for errors in
execution. In the longer duration case (> 200 msec) the predominate
 H. N. Zelaznik et al. / Visual feedback processing 189

mode of feedback processing is to make corrections to home in on the

target. Two popular models can explain these longer duration findings.
First, the intermittent correction model used to explain Fitts law
(Crossman and Goodeve 1963, cited as 1983) posits that people can
execute a series of discrete corrections on route to the target. These
corrections are thought to take between 190 and 260 msec (but see
Carlton (1981) for exceptions). Thus, when the MT goal is only 200
msec, little or no time is available for the intermittent corrections and
one then would expect the benefits of visual feedback to be small.
When MT is long enough to allow for these corrective processes, then
the number of corrections and the distance from the target that the last
correction is made will determine spatial accuracy. As movement
distance increases more error will be reduced by these corrections and
thus one should observe the increasing difference in spatial accuracy
for the Light-On and Light-Off conditions.
Beggs and Howarth (see Howarth and Beggs 1985) proposed a single
correction model in which the distance from the target when the final
correction is executed determines the movement’s accuracy. These
corrections are based upon visual feedback, and have a fixed relative
accuracy, and a duration of 290 msec. As movement distance increases,
the absolute amount of error reduced by the final correction increases.
Movements that are not visually guided, of course, do not have this
final correction process. Thus, as movement distance increases the
benefits of having vision available increase. This is what is found in our
analysis of the Light-Off-Light-On difference scores. It is clear that the
best way to examine this issue further is to provide the kinematic data
concerning the limb’s trajectory as a function of movement distance,
time and vision. In the present experiment we were not capable of
performing such data collection.
We only can speculate on the possible mechanism(s) for the limited
duration effects of visual feedback. One possibility is that the availabil-
ity of vision serves to tune the operations of the mass-spring system in
controlling final location (Polit and Bizzi 1978; Schmidt and McGown
1980) such that the new equilibrium point can be modified on-line
during movement production. There is no evidence to support such a
claim, however, the above explanation predicts that target information
would be essential for observing Light-On-Light-Off differences.
It also is possible that over trials, visually-guided movements pro-
duce less motor-output variability. There is evidence that in cats the
190 H.N. Zelaznik et al. / Visual feedback processing

optical flow can cause non-conscious mediated changes in the level of

excitability of the alpha-motoneurons controlling cat hindlimbs
(Thodens et al. 1979). Perhaps in the Light-Off conditions the lack of
visual stimulation causes instability in the level of excitability in the
motoneuron pool.
The fact that the benefits of visually-guided movements did not
decrease as movement distance increased threatens the credibility of
the role of average velocity in visually guided motor control. Rather it
seems that movement time is the most important determinant of the
role of vision in motor control.
There are some puzzling aspects of these data that appear to violate
some of the principles of impulse variability theory (Meyer et al. 1982;
Schmidt et al. 1979). The major one concerns the increase in error for
the Light-Off conditions as MT increases. According to impulse varia-
bility theory as MT increases error should decrease. However, in the
present experiment it is not at all clear that the impulse variability
principles apply in the longer duration movements. First, these move-
ments might not be programmed, and if such were the case then
current impulse variability principles should not hold. Second, impulse
variability principles (Schmidt et al. 1979) work if subjects are attempt-
ing to execute the same motor program trial after trial. Phenomenologi-
tally, it is clear than in the Light-Off conditions subjects were experi-
menting in order to land ‘on-time’, violating one of the assumptions of
impulse variability theory, and as such their spatial accuracy de-
teriorated.
In summary, the results of the present experiment provide converg-
ing support for the notion that the visual feedback effects in limited
duration movements are qualitatively different than in longer duration
ones. We believe that this result implies a two-process explanation of
visual-motor control. Future work must provide evidence concerning
the exact nature of these processes.

References

Carlton, L.G., 1981. Processing visual information for motor control. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 7, 1019-1030.
Crossman, E.R.F.W. and P.J. Goodeve, 1983. Feedback control of hand movements and Fit&’
Law. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A: Human Experimental Psychology 35.
3-21.
 H.N. Zelarnik ef al. / Visual feedback processmg 191

Howarth, C.I. and W.D.A. Beggs, 1985. ‘The control of simple movements by multisensory
information’. In: H. Heuer, U. Kleinbeck and K.-H. Schmidt (eds.), Motor behavior: program-
ming, control and acquisition. Berlin: Springer. pp. 125-151.
Keele, S.W. and M.I. Posner, 1968. Processing of visual feedback in rapid movements. Journal of
Experimental Psychology 77, 155-158.
Knapp, ST., 1975. Feedback versus motor programming in the control of aimed movements.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 104, 147-153.
Meyer. D.E.. J.E.K. Smith and C.E. Wright, 1982. Models for the speed and accuracy of aimed
movements. Psychological Review 89, 449-482.
Polit, A. and E. Bizzi, 1978. Processes controlling arm movements in monkeys. Science 201,
123551237.
Schmidt, R.A., 1976. Control processes in motor skills. Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews 4,
2299261.
Schmidt, R.A. and C.M. McGown, 1980. Terminal accuracy or unexpectedly loaded rapid
movements: evidence for a mass-spring mechanism in programming. Journal of Motor
Behavior 12, 149-161.
Schmidt, R.A. and D.G. Russell, 1980. Movement velocity and movement time as determiners of
degree of preprogramming in simple movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology 96,
3155320.
Schmidt, R.A. H.N. Zelaznik and J.S. Frank, 1978. ‘Sources of inaccuracy in rapid movement’. In:
G.E. Stelmach (ed.), Information processing in motor control and learning. New York:
Academic Press. pp. 183-203.
Schmidt, R.A., H.N. Zelaznik, B. Hawkins, J.S. Frank and J.T. Quinn, 1979. Motor-output
variability: a theory for the accuracy of rapid motor acts. Psychological Review 86, 415-451.
Smith, W.M. and K.F. Bowen, 1980. The effects of delayed and displaced visual feedback on
motor control. Journal of Motor Behavior 12, 91-101.
Thodens, U.. J. Dichgans, M. Doerr and Th. Savides. 1979. ‘Direction-specific vestibular and
visual modulation of fore- and hindlimb reflexes in cats’. In: R. Granit and 0. Pompeiano
(eds.). Reflex control of posture and movement. Amsterdam: Elsevier. pp. 211-218.
Zelaznik, H.N., B. Hawkins and L.G. Kisselburgh, 1983. Rapid visual feedback processing in
single-aiming movements. Journal of Motor Behavior 15, 217-236.
Zelaznik, H.N., D.C. Shapiro and D. McColsky, 1981. The effects of a secondary task on the
accuracy of single-aiming movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Percep-
tion and Performance 7, 100771018.