Do perception and motor production share common timing mechanisms: A correlational analysis
The two experiments of this study exploited individual variation in timing ability to ask whether the production of time intervals by different motor effectors and the judgement of perceptually based time intervals all share common timing mechanisms. In one task subjects produced a series of taps, a...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Acta psychologica 1985-12, Vol.60 (2), p.173-191 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 191 |
---|---|
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 173 |
container_title | Acta psychologica |
container_volume | 60 |
creator | Keele, Steven W. Pokorny, Robert A. Corcos, Daniel M. Ivry, Richard |
description | The two experiments of this study exploited individual variation in timing ability to ask whether the production of time intervals by different motor effectors and the judgement of perceptually based time intervals all share common timing mechanisms. In one task subjects produced a series of taps, attempting to maintain constant intervals between them. Individual differences in variability of the produced intervals correlated across the effectors of finger and foot. That is, people that were ‘good timers’ with one effector tended to be ‘good timers’ with another. Besides timing motor production, the subjects also judged durations of brief perceptual events. The acuity of perceptual judgements correlate substantially with regularity of motor production. Further results involving maximum speed of motor production suggested that variability of motor timing comes from two sources, one source in common with perception, and hence called clock variability, and the other source in common with motor speed, and hence called motor implementation variability. The second experiment showed that people high in skill on the piano were better at both types of timing on the average than control subjects with no expertise. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/0001-6918(85)90054-X |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_32318222</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>000169188590054X</els_id><sourcerecordid>1301240467</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c429t-3ea9e6b23f84094236bffd5c02deabf21550b3322de39f7978cf1be3d763959a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kE1LxDAQhoMouK7-Aw8FQfRQzUe_4kFY1k9Y8KKw4CGk6dTN0jQ1aYX996a74sGDp-GdeeZl5kXolOArgkl2jTEmccZJcVGklxzjNImXe2hCipzFGeX5Ppr8IofoyPt1kAnhZILe72zUgVPQ9dq2kWyryNjeuqhzthrUtulX0kGkrDFB9Nro9iMyoFay1d74m2gWZs5BI0daNsFENhuv_TE6qGXj4eSnTtHbw_3r_ClevDw-z2eLWCWU9zEDySErKauLBPOEsqys6ypVmFYgy5qSNMUlYzRIxuuc54WqSQmsyjPGUy7ZFJ3vfMPNnwP4XhjtFTSNbMEOXjDKSEEpDeDZH3BtBxeu9YIwTGiCkywPVLKjlLPeO6hF57SRbiMIFmPeYgxTjGGKIhXbvMUyrN3u1iC8-qXBCa80tAoq7UD1orL6f4NvpIWHyQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1301240467</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Do perception and motor production share common timing mechanisms: A correlational analysis</title><source>Periodicals Index Online</source><source>Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)</source><creator>Keele, Steven W. ; Pokorny, Robert A. ; Corcos, Daniel M. ; Ivry, Richard</creator><creatorcontrib>Keele, Steven W. ; Pokorny, Robert A. ; Corcos, Daniel M. ; Ivry, Richard</creatorcontrib><description>The two experiments of this study exploited individual variation in timing ability to ask whether the production of time intervals by different motor effectors and the judgement of perceptually based time intervals all share common timing mechanisms. In one task subjects produced a series of taps, attempting to maintain constant intervals between them. Individual differences in variability of the produced intervals correlated across the effectors of finger and foot. That is, people that were ‘good timers’ with one effector tended to be ‘good timers’ with another. Besides timing motor production, the subjects also judged durations of brief perceptual events. The acuity of perceptual judgements correlate substantially with regularity of motor production. Further results involving maximum speed of motor production suggested that variability of motor timing comes from two sources, one source in common with perception, and hence called clock variability, and the other source in common with motor speed, and hence called motor implementation variability. The second experiment showed that people high in skill on the piano were better at both types of timing on the average than control subjects with no expertise.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0001-6918</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-6297</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/0001-6918(85)90054-X</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>The Hague: Elsevier B.V</publisher><ispartof>Acta psychologica, 1985-12, Vol.60 (2), p.173-191</ispartof><rights>1985</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c429t-3ea9e6b23f84094236bffd5c02deabf21550b3322de39f7978cf1be3d763959a3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c429t-3ea9e6b23f84094236bffd5c02deabf21550b3322de39f7978cf1be3d763959a3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(85)90054-X$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27869,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Keele, Steven W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pokorny, Robert A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Corcos, Daniel M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ivry, Richard</creatorcontrib><title>Do perception and motor production share common timing mechanisms: A correlational analysis</title><title>Acta psychologica</title><description>The two experiments of this study exploited individual variation in timing ability to ask whether the production of time intervals by different motor effectors and the judgement of perceptually based time intervals all share common timing mechanisms. In one task subjects produced a series of taps, attempting to maintain constant intervals between them. Individual differences in variability of the produced intervals correlated across the effectors of finger and foot. That is, people that were ‘good timers’ with one effector tended to be ‘good timers’ with another. Besides timing motor production, the subjects also judged durations of brief perceptual events. The acuity of perceptual judgements correlate substantially with regularity of motor production. Further results involving maximum speed of motor production suggested that variability of motor timing comes from two sources, one source in common with perception, and hence called clock variability, and the other source in common with motor speed, and hence called motor implementation variability. The second experiment showed that people high in skill on the piano were better at both types of timing on the average than control subjects with no expertise.</description><issn>0001-6918</issn><issn>1873-6297</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1985</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>K30</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kE1LxDAQhoMouK7-Aw8FQfRQzUe_4kFY1k9Y8KKw4CGk6dTN0jQ1aYX996a74sGDp-GdeeZl5kXolOArgkl2jTEmccZJcVGklxzjNImXe2hCipzFGeX5Ppr8IofoyPt1kAnhZILe72zUgVPQ9dq2kWyryNjeuqhzthrUtulX0kGkrDFB9Nro9iMyoFay1d74m2gWZs5BI0daNsFENhuv_TE6qGXj4eSnTtHbw_3r_ClevDw-z2eLWCWU9zEDySErKauLBPOEsqys6ypVmFYgy5qSNMUlYzRIxuuc54WqSQmsyjPGUy7ZFJ3vfMPNnwP4XhjtFTSNbMEOXjDKSEEpDeDZH3BtBxeu9YIwTGiCkywPVLKjlLPeO6hF57SRbiMIFmPeYgxTjGGKIhXbvMUyrN3u1iC8-qXBCa80tAoq7UD1orL6f4NvpIWHyQ</recordid><startdate>19851201</startdate><enddate>19851201</enddate><creator>Keele, Steven W.</creator><creator>Pokorny, Robert A.</creator><creator>Corcos, Daniel M.</creator><creator>Ivry, Richard</creator><general>Elsevier B.V</general><general>Martinus Nijhoff</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>ICWRT</scope><scope>K30</scope><scope>PAAUG</scope><scope>PAWHS</scope><scope>PAWZZ</scope><scope>PAXOH</scope><scope>PBHAV</scope><scope>PBQSW</scope><scope>PBYQZ</scope><scope>PCIWU</scope><scope>PCMID</scope><scope>PCZJX</scope><scope>PDGRG</scope><scope>PDWWI</scope><scope>PETMR</scope><scope>PFVGT</scope><scope>PGXDX</scope><scope>PIHIL</scope><scope>PISVA</scope><scope>PJCTQ</scope><scope>PJTMS</scope><scope>PLCHJ</scope><scope>PMHAD</scope><scope>PNQDJ</scope><scope>POUND</scope><scope>PPLAD</scope><scope>PQAPC</scope><scope>PQCAN</scope><scope>PQCMW</scope><scope>PQEME</scope><scope>PQHKH</scope><scope>PQMID</scope><scope>PQNCT</scope><scope>PQNET</scope><scope>PQSCT</scope><scope>PQSET</scope><scope>PSVJG</scope><scope>PVMQY</scope><scope>PZGFC</scope><scope>7TA</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>JG9</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19851201</creationdate><title>Do perception and motor production share common timing mechanisms: A correlational analysis</title><author>Keele, Steven W. ; Pokorny, Robert A. ; Corcos, Daniel M. ; Ivry, Richard</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c429t-3ea9e6b23f84094236bffd5c02deabf21550b3322de39f7978cf1be3d763959a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1985</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Keele, Steven W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pokorny, Robert A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Corcos, Daniel M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ivry, Richard</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 28</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - West</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segments 1-50</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - MEA</collection><collection>Materials Business File</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Materials Research Database</collection><jtitle>Acta psychologica</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Keele, Steven W.</au><au>Pokorny, Robert A.</au><au>Corcos, Daniel M.</au><au>Ivry, Richard</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Do perception and motor production share common timing mechanisms: A correlational analysis</atitle><jtitle>Acta psychologica</jtitle><date>1985-12-01</date><risdate>1985</risdate><volume>60</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>173</spage><epage>191</epage><pages>173-191</pages><issn>0001-6918</issn><eissn>1873-6297</eissn><abstract>The two experiments of this study exploited individual variation in timing ability to ask whether the production of time intervals by different motor effectors and the judgement of perceptually based time intervals all share common timing mechanisms. In one task subjects produced a series of taps, attempting to maintain constant intervals between them. Individual differences in variability of the produced intervals correlated across the effectors of finger and foot. That is, people that were ‘good timers’ with one effector tended to be ‘good timers’ with another. Besides timing motor production, the subjects also judged durations of brief perceptual events. The acuity of perceptual judgements correlate substantially with regularity of motor production. Further results involving maximum speed of motor production suggested that variability of motor timing comes from two sources, one source in common with perception, and hence called clock variability, and the other source in common with motor speed, and hence called motor implementation variability. The second experiment showed that people high in skill on the piano were better at both types of timing on the average than control subjects with no expertise.</abstract><cop>The Hague</cop><pub>Elsevier B.V</pub><doi>10.1016/0001-6918(85)90054-X</doi><tpages>19</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0001-6918 |
ispartof | Acta psychologica, 1985-12, Vol.60 (2), p.173-191 |
issn | 0001-6918 1873-6297 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_32318222 |
source | Periodicals Index Online; Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier) |
title | Do perception and motor production share common timing mechanisms: A correlational analysis |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-19T00%3A26%3A26IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Do%20perception%20and%20motor%20production%20share%20common%20timing%20mechanisms:%20A%20correlational%20analysis&rft.jtitle=Acta%20psychologica&rft.au=Keele,%20Steven%20W.&rft.date=1985-12-01&rft.volume=60&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=173&rft.epage=191&rft.pages=173-191&rft.issn=0001-6918&rft.eissn=1873-6297&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/0001-6918(85)90054-X&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1301240467%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1301240467&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_els_id=000169188590054X&rfr_iscdi=true |