The perceptual-motor impairments of individuals with Down syndrome (DS) are attributed to central (e.g., neurophysiology deficits that affect the retrieval or initiation of motor programs) and peripheral (e.g., anatomical deficits relating to issues with inertia of limb mechanics and muscle organization) processes. However, recent research suggests that central deficits do not affect the integration between movements. We investigate the impact of central and peripheral DS deficits on movement integration by examining the planning and execution of multiple-target multiple-arm movements. Individuals with DS, typically developing (TD), and individuals with an undifferentiated intellectual disability (UID) completed five aiming tasks: a one target; a one-arm, two-target extension; a two-arm, two-target extension (movement one was performed with one arm and movement two performed with the other); a one-arm, two-target reversal; and a two-arm, two-target reversal. Movement times (MTs) to the first target were longer in the two-target tasks compared with the one-target task. For the one-arm, two-target reversal task, this effect emerged only in individuals with DS. These results indicate that individuals with DS use central processing for movement integration similarly to their TD and UID counterparts but cannot exploit peripheral-level integration to enhance integration in one-arm reversal tasks.
Niamh Reilly, Gavin P. Lawrence, Thomas Mottram and Michael Khan
Gavin P. Lawrence, Michael A. Khan, Stuart Mourton and Pierre-Michel Bernier
The objective of the current study was to determine whether the reliance on visual feedback that develops with practice is to due utilizing vision to adjust trajectories during movement execution (i.e., online) and/or to enhance the programming of subsequent trials (i.e., offline). Participants performed a directional aiming task with either vision during the movement, dynamic feedback of the trajectory of the movement or the movement endpoint. The full vision condition was more accurate during practice than the other feedback conditions but suffered a greater decrement in performance when feedback was removed. In addition, the reliance on trajectory feedback was greater compared with the endpoint feedback. It appears that the reliance on visual feedback that develops with practice was due to both online and offline processing.
Michael A. Khan, Gavin P. Lawrence, Ian M. Franks and Digby Elliott
The purpose of the present study was to establish the contribution of visual feedback in the correction of errors during movement execution (i.e., online) and the utilization of visual feedback from a completed movement in the programming of upcoming trials (i.e., offline). Participants performed 2 dimensional sweeping movements on a digitizing tablet through 1 of 3 targets, which were represented on a video monitor. The movements were performed with and without visual feedback under 4 criterion movement times (150, 250, 350, 450 msec). We analyzed the variability in directional error at 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% of the distance between the home position and the target. There were significant differences in variability between visual conditions at each movement time. However, in the 150-msec condition, the form of the variability profiles did not differ between visual conditions, suggesting that the contribution of visual feedback was due to offline processes. In the 250-, 350-, and 450-msec conditions, there was evidence for both online and offline control, as the form of the variability profiles differed between the vision and no vision conditions.