<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Dagmar Sternad</title>
<copyright>Copyright (c) 2012  All rights reserved.</copyright>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/dsternad</link>
<description>Recent documents in Dagmar Sternad</description>
<language>en-us</language>
<lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Nov 2012 22:12:27 PST</lastBuildDate>
<ttl>3600</ttl>








<item>
<title>Neuromotor noise, error tolerance and velocity-dependent costs in skilled performance</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/dsternad/1</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/dsternad/1</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2012 22:30:13 PDT</pubDate>
<description>
	<![CDATA[
	<p>In  motor tasks with redundancy neuromotor noise can lead to variations in execution  while achieving relative invariance in the result. The present study examined  whether humans find solutions that are tolerant to intrinsic noise. Using a  throwing task in a virtual set-up where an infinite set of angle and velocity  combinations at ball release yield throwing accuracy, our computational approach  permitted quantitative predictions about solution strategies that are tolerant  to noise. Based on a mathematical model of the task expected results were  computed and provided predictions about error-tolerant strategies (Hypothesis  1). As strategies can take on a large range of velocities, a second hypothesis  was that subjects select strategies that minimize velocity at release to avoid  costs associated with signal- or velocity-dependent noise or higher energy  demands (Hypothesis 2). Two experiments with different target constellations  tested these two hypotheses. Results of Experiment 1 showed that subjects chose  solutions with high error-tolerance, although these solutions also had  relatively low velocity. These two benefits seemed to outweigh that for many  subjects these solutions were close to a high-penalty area, i.e. they were  risky. Experiment 2 dissociated the two hypotheses. Results showed that  individuals were consistent with Hypothesis 1 although their solutions were  distributed over a range of velocities. Additional analyses revealed that a  velocity-dependent increase in variability was absent, probably due to the  presence of a solution manifold that channeled variability in a task-specific  manner. Hence, the general acceptance of signal-dependent noise may need some  qualification. These findings have significance for the fundamental  understanding of how the central nervous system deals with its inherent  neuromotor noise.</p>

	]]>
</description>

<author>Dagmar Sternad et al.</author>


<category>Movement</category>

<category>Psychology of</category>

</item>





</channel>
</rss>
