Comprehensive Physiology Wiley Online Library
For Librarians For Authors Editors About

Human Manual Control

E. C. Poulton

10.1002/cphy.cp010230

Source: Supplement 2: Handbook of Physiology, The Nervous System, Motor Control

Originally published: 1981

Published online: January 2011

Full Article on Wiley Online Library



Abstract

The sections in this article are:

1 A Simple Model for Voluntary Control
1.1 Working Memory and Internal Rehearsal
1.2 Coding of Words in Working Memory
1.3 Computer of Limited Capacity
1.4 Single‐Channel Input Selector
1.5 Long‐Term Memory and Automation of Skill
1.6 Summary
2 Bias from Transfer
2.1 Central Tendency Bias
2.2 Asymmetric Transfer Bias
2.3 Avoiding Transfer Bias
2.4 Summary
3 Measures of Error
3.1 Relationships Between Measures of Error
3.2 Measures of Error in Tracking
3.3 Summary
4 Preprogramming and Error Correction
4.1 Quick Ballistic Movements
4.2 Craik's Ratio Rule
4.3 Preprogrammed Movements With Error Correction
5 Nonvisual Memory for Single Movements
5.1 Weber's Law for Accuracy of Movements
5.2 Contraction Bias
5.3 Uncontrolled Differences in Sizes of Movements
5.4 Forgetting and Spatial Reference Points
5.5 Interpolated Motor Activity Between Criterion Movement and Reproduced Movement
5.6 Location Better Remembered Than Distance
5.7 Active and Passive Preselected and Constrained Movements
5.8 Visual Cues Take Priority Over Nonvisual Cues
5.9 Summary
6 Reaction Time for Correcting a Limb Movement
6.1 Deliberate and Automatic Corrections
6.2 Kinesthetic Reaction Time
6.3 Visual Correction of Quick Movements
6.4 Reaction Time for a Correction in Tracking Steps
6.5 Advance Correction of Direction
6.6 Corrected Anticipatory Response
6.7 Difficulties of Interpretation
6.8 Additional Artifacts in Measuring Reaction Times to Steps
6.9 Summary
7 Preparation and Time Sharing
7.1 Reaction Times for Multiple Choices
7.2 Grouped Responses to Simultaneous Stimuli
7.3 Psychological Refractory Period
7.4 Holding Strategy in Tracking Steps
7.5 Apparent Elimination of Psychological Refractory Period by Simultaneous Strategy
7.6 Probe Reaction Time and Psychological Refractory Period
7.7 Reaction Time to a Probe Presented During a Movement
7.8 Interference Between Movements of Two Limbs
7.9 Time Sharing Between Two Tasks
7.10 Tracking in Two Dimensions
7.11 Optimum Combinations of Two Unrelated Tasks
7.12 Summary
8 Prediction and Preprogramming Replace Error Correction in Complex Skills
8.1 Prediction of Speed in Pursuit Tracking
8.2 Preprogramming of Response Frequency in Pursuit Tracking
8.3 Models for Prediction
8.4 Prediction and Error Correction in Tracking With Pursuit and Compensatory Displays
8.5 Preprogramming With Control Systems of High Order
8.6 Preprogramming and Error Correction in Complex Skills
8.7 Summary
9 Tracking by Eye
10 Overview
Figure 1. Figure 1.

A simple model for deliberate or voluntary control, showing the main limitations of the brain. The model was produced for a lecture in 1963. The general layout follows Broadbent's model (p. 299 in ref. 19), but most boxes are labeled differently. Broadbent's labels correspond to his theories at that time, which are now largely outdated. The flow of information from receptors through central mechanisms to effectors follows Welford 156. The use of boxes to represent functions comes from electrical engineering 17. The internal rehearsal loop appears to have been an innovation in 1963.

From Poulton 116
Figure 2. Figure 2.

Latin square and AB‐BA within‐subjects designs of the kind generally used in experiments with people. For the complete 4 × 4 latin square, A, B, C., and D represent 4 experimental conditions. Columns show order in which conditions are performed by the 4 people represented by rows. Each person performs every condition, and each condition is presented once in every serial position. For the 2 × 2 AB‐BA design enclosed by the dashed lines, there are only 2 conditions, 2 orders, and 2 people or groups of people.
Figure 3. Figure 3.

Contraction bias in an experiment with 10 different sizes of step. Small steps are overshot on the average; large steps are undershot. Average constant error, CE, is smallest for steps in the middle of the range.

From Poulton 119; data from Slack 141
Figure 4. Figure 4.

Asymmetric transfer between pursuit and compensatory tracking. Before transfer (left) filled points for pursuit tracking lie reliably below unfilled points for compensatory tracking. After transfer (right) filled diamonds for pursuit tracking lie a little below unfilled triangles for compensatory tracking, but the difference is not now reliable. Notice that on left before transfer, both groups that are to change conditions have smaller average errors than the corresponding control groups that are not to change conditions. This could be an “experimenter effect,” a direct influence of the experimenter on the people in different groups, which the experimenter may not realize 131. It can happen if the experimenter is less interested in control groups than in groups that change conditions.

From Poulton 119; data from Gordon 52
Figure 5. Figure 5.

Pursuit and compensatory displays. In tracking with a pursuit display, the person sees the track or input signal and also the output of his control or control system. He must match the two. In tracking with a compensatory display, the person sees only his error. Error is the difference between the track or input signal and the output of the person's control or control system. Compensatory tracking is the more difficult task. Block diagrams on right illustrate the way in which person and experimental equipment are connected. They do not indicate the nonlinear strategies that a person actually uses.

From Poulton 119
Figure 6. Figure 6.

Effect of response reference point, Rrp, on the theoretical stopping points of movements aimed at targets of various distances. The movements, labeled Resp for response, start at bottom and go vertically up page, as indicated by arrows. Thick vertical lines, labeled Stim for stimulus, show range of correct stopping points in arbitrary arithmetic units of distance. Sloping lines show average constant error, CE, or average algebraic error taking account of the sign. A: sloping lines reflect contraction bias. Width of distributions of stopping points illustrate Weber's law for the standard deviation of error, SD, or variable error. B–D: slopes of the lines are determined by a response reference point, Rrp, represented by the diamond. The response reference points lie respectively just within, at end of, or just beyond the far end of the range of correct stopping points. Width of distribution of stopping points at far end of range is reduced by response reference point.
Figure 7. Figure 7.

Theoretical relation of the modulus mean error (average absolute error) to constant error (average algebraic error) when both measures are expressed as proportions of the standard deviation of the error (variable error). Relation is shown by solid line. It assumes a normal or Gaussian distribution of errors, as in the distributions of Pig. 6.
Figure 8. Figure 8.

Effect of starting position of a reproduced movement.

A: reproduced movement starts ahead of criterion movement. This produces a negative constant error in reproducing distance of criterion movement and a positive constant error in reproducing location of its stopping point. B: reproduced movement starts behind criterion movement. This produces a positive constant error in reproducing distance and a negative constant error in reproducing location of stopping point
Figure 9. Figure 9.

Theoretical reaction times (RTs) in tracking steps. Stimulus is a downward step at time 0 on abscissa. A correct response is an upward step of same size. After a response in wrong direction, function 2 illustrates a one‐choice visual reaction time; function 3 illustrates a one‐choice kinesthetic reaction time. Function 6 illustrates the psychological refractory period, Ψ, for the correction of an anticipatory response once the unexpected stimulus appears.
Figure 10. Figure 10.

A selected record of step tracking from the experiment of Trumbo et al. 151. Steps occur every 1.0 s, as indicated at top. Irregular steps start and end at a different one of the 6 positions, 0–5, indicated on ordinate. Thus times and directions of steps 1, 4, and 5 are certain. For predictable step 8, size is certain as well as time and direction.

From Poulton 119
Figure 11. Figure 11.

Theoretical functions for choice reaction times with different numbers of choices. Unfilled circles represent average reaction times after minimum practice. Filled points show how reaction times diminish after days of practice, especially when there are many choices. This produces less steep functions. If the same people practice all the conditions, average reaction time may eventually be the same for 8 choices as for only 2 choices. This is indicated by filled circles and solid line.
Figure 12. Figure 12.

Strategies used in experiments on psychological refractory period with 2 manual responses. Top 2 rows illustrate what a person does in a simple experiment before training. Stimuli S1 and S2 are separated by time interval I. Recorded starts, R1 and R2, of the 2 corresponding manual responses have reaction times RT1 and RT2. The r1 just before R1 in top row indicates time at which computer of Fig. 1 finishes dealing with S1 and R1. The RT2 in second row would normally equal RTn, but it is increased by psychological refractory period, which is indicated by horizontal dashed line. In row 3 computer takes longer to prepare for S2R2 pairs. This could be due to interference between S1R1 and S2R2 pairs, or to not expecting S2 so soon. In row 4 S1 is held until S2 occurs. A single complex response is then made to the two stimuli.
Figure 13. Figure 13.

Selected responses to pairs of steps in Vince's experiment 152. Thick line represents track that has to be followed. Thin line represents person's response. On the left of the figure the time interval between the 2 steps is 0.05 s, on the right, time interval is 0.2 s. At each time interval percentages add up to 100. They indicate the proportion of response pairs that fall into each category. First responses classified as too small in rows 3 and 4 are less than 75% of correct size. In many cases this is because the person does not initiate first response until first step has been replaced by second step of the pair.

From Poulton 119
Figure 14. Figure 14.

Mean reaction times to 1st and 2nd steps of a pair in Vince's experiment 152. Interval I between steps is shown on abscissa. At short intervals, differences between mean reaction times to 1st and 2nd stimuli are partly determined by psychological refractory period. Differences are smaller for squares, which represent pairs of steps where 1st response is too small, than for circles where 1st response is about the right size.

From Poulton 119
Figure 15. Figure 15.

Mean choice reaction times (RT) when 2 stimuli are presented in close succession with highly compatible responses, which do not interfere with each other. Table 6 shows that means of simultaneous experiment in right panel at intervals between stimuli of 0.1 and 0.2 s can be fitted by a combination of 2 distinct strategies: 1) respond at once to 1st stimulus and then wait for the 2nd stimulus; 2) wait for 2nd stimulus and respond to both stimuli simultaneously with a dual response.

Data from Greenwald and Schulman 54
Figure 16. Figure 16.

Mean reaction time to a 2‐choice probe tone presented at various times during or after reaction time or movement of forearm. Approximate times along bottom are for condition 2W, 2‐choice forearm movements to wide 5° target. Approximate times along top are for condition 2N, 2‐choice forearm movements to narrow 1° target. With 3 choices and narrow target, condition 3N, average forearm reaction time is about 0.1 s longer than for 2N.

Data from Ells 41
Figure 17. Figure 17.

Theoretical programs of control movements that are required to correct an error in position with different orders of control system. A rate‐aided control combines position and rate control.

From Poulton 119


Figure 1.

A simple model for deliberate or voluntary control, showing the main limitations of the brain. The model was produced for a lecture in 1963. The general layout follows Broadbent's model (p. 299 in ref. 19), but most boxes are labeled differently. Broadbent's labels correspond to his theories at that time, which are now largely outdated. The flow of information from receptors through central mechanisms to effectors follows Welford 156. The use of boxes to represent functions comes from electrical engineering 17. The internal rehearsal loop appears to have been an innovation in 1963.

From Poulton 116


Figure 2.

Latin square and AB‐BA within‐subjects designs of the kind generally used in experiments with people. For the complete 4 × 4 latin square, A, B, C., and D represent 4 experimental conditions. Columns show order in which conditions are performed by the 4 people represented by rows. Each person performs every condition, and each condition is presented once in every serial position. For the 2 × 2 AB‐BA design enclosed by the dashed lines, there are only 2 conditions, 2 orders, and 2 people or groups of people.



Figure 3.

Contraction bias in an experiment with 10 different sizes of step. Small steps are overshot on the average; large steps are undershot. Average constant error, CE, is smallest for steps in the middle of the range.

From Poulton 119; data from Slack 141


Figure 4.

Asymmetric transfer between pursuit and compensatory tracking. Before transfer (left) filled points for pursuit tracking lie reliably below unfilled points for compensatory tracking. After transfer (right) filled diamonds for pursuit tracking lie a little below unfilled triangles for compensatory tracking, but the difference is not now reliable. Notice that on left before transfer, both groups that are to change conditions have smaller average errors than the corresponding control groups that are not to change conditions. This could be an “experimenter effect,” a direct influence of the experimenter on the people in different groups, which the experimenter may not realize 131. It can happen if the experimenter is less interested in control groups than in groups that change conditions.

From Poulton 119; data from Gordon 52


Figure 5.

Pursuit and compensatory displays. In tracking with a pursuit display, the person sees the track or input signal and also the output of his control or control system. He must match the two. In tracking with a compensatory display, the person sees only his error. Error is the difference between the track or input signal and the output of the person's control or control system. Compensatory tracking is the more difficult task. Block diagrams on right illustrate the way in which person and experimental equipment are connected. They do not indicate the nonlinear strategies that a person actually uses.

From Poulton 119


Figure 6.

Effect of response reference point, Rrp, on the theoretical stopping points of movements aimed at targets of various distances. The movements, labeled Resp for response, start at bottom and go vertically up page, as indicated by arrows. Thick vertical lines, labeled Stim for stimulus, show range of correct stopping points in arbitrary arithmetic units of distance. Sloping lines show average constant error, CE, or average algebraic error taking account of the sign. A: sloping lines reflect contraction bias. Width of distributions of stopping points illustrate Weber's law for the standard deviation of error, SD, or variable error. B–D: slopes of the lines are determined by a response reference point, Rrp, represented by the diamond. The response reference points lie respectively just within, at end of, or just beyond the far end of the range of correct stopping points. Width of distribution of stopping points at far end of range is reduced by response reference point.



Figure 7.

Theoretical relation of the modulus mean error (average absolute error) to constant error (average algebraic error) when both measures are expressed as proportions of the standard deviation of the error (variable error). Relation is shown by solid line. It assumes a normal or Gaussian distribution of errors, as in the distributions of Pig. 6.



Figure 8.

Effect of starting position of a reproduced movement.

A: reproduced movement starts ahead of criterion movement. This produces a negative constant error in reproducing distance of criterion movement and a positive constant error in reproducing location of its stopping point. B: reproduced movement starts behind criterion movement. This produces a positive constant error in reproducing distance and a negative constant error in reproducing location of stopping point


Figure 9.

Theoretical reaction times (RTs) in tracking steps. Stimulus is a downward step at time 0 on abscissa. A correct response is an upward step of same size. After a response in wrong direction, function 2 illustrates a one‐choice visual reaction time; function 3 illustrates a one‐choice kinesthetic reaction time. Function 6 illustrates the psychological refractory period, Ψ, for the correction of an anticipatory response once the unexpected stimulus appears.



Figure 10.

A selected record of step tracking from the experiment of Trumbo et al. 151. Steps occur every 1.0 s, as indicated at top. Irregular steps start and end at a different one of the 6 positions, 0–5, indicated on ordinate. Thus times and directions of steps 1, 4, and 5 are certain. For predictable step 8, size is certain as well as time and direction.

From Poulton 119


Figure 11.

Theoretical functions for choice reaction times with different numbers of choices. Unfilled circles represent average reaction times after minimum practice. Filled points show how reaction times diminish after days of practice, especially when there are many choices. This produces less steep functions. If the same people practice all the conditions, average reaction time may eventually be the same for 8 choices as for only 2 choices. This is indicated by filled circles and solid line.



Figure 12.

Strategies used in experiments on psychological refractory period with 2 manual responses. Top 2 rows illustrate what a person does in a simple experiment before training. Stimuli S1 and S2 are separated by time interval I. Recorded starts, R1 and R2, of the 2 corresponding manual responses have reaction times RT1 and RT2. The r1 just before R1 in top row indicates time at which computer of Fig. 1 finishes dealing with S1 and R1. The RT2 in second row would normally equal RTn, but it is increased by psychological refractory period, which is indicated by horizontal dashed line. In row 3 computer takes longer to prepare for S2R2 pairs. This could be due to interference between S1R1 and S2R2 pairs, or to not expecting S2 so soon. In row 4 S1 is held until S2 occurs. A single complex response is then made to the two stimuli.



Figure 13.

Selected responses to pairs of steps in Vince's experiment 152. Thick line represents track that has to be followed. Thin line represents person's response. On the left of the figure the time interval between the 2 steps is 0.05 s, on the right, time interval is 0.2 s. At each time interval percentages add up to 100. They indicate the proportion of response pairs that fall into each category. First responses classified as too small in rows 3 and 4 are less than 75% of correct size. In many cases this is because the person does not initiate first response until first step has been replaced by second step of the pair.

From Poulton 119


Figure 14.

Mean reaction times to 1st and 2nd steps of a pair in Vince's experiment 152. Interval I between steps is shown on abscissa. At short intervals, differences between mean reaction times to 1st and 2nd stimuli are partly determined by psychological refractory period. Differences are smaller for squares, which represent pairs of steps where 1st response is too small, than for circles where 1st response is about the right size.

From Poulton 119


Figure 15.

Mean choice reaction times (RT) when 2 stimuli are presented in close succession with highly compatible responses, which do not interfere with each other. Table 6 shows that means of simultaneous experiment in right panel at intervals between stimuli of 0.1 and 0.2 s can be fitted by a combination of 2 distinct strategies: 1) respond at once to 1st stimulus and then wait for the 2nd stimulus; 2) wait for 2nd stimulus and respond to both stimuli simultaneously with a dual response.

Data from Greenwald and Schulman 54


Figure 16.

Mean reaction time to a 2‐choice probe tone presented at various times during or after reaction time or movement of forearm. Approximate times along bottom are for condition 2W, 2‐choice forearm movements to wide 5° target. Approximate times along top are for condition 2N, 2‐choice forearm movements to narrow 1° target. With 3 choices and narrow target, condition 3N, average forearm reaction time is about 0.1 s longer than for 2N.

Data from Ells 41


Figure 17.

Theoretical programs of control movements that are required to correct an error in position with different orders of control system. A rate‐aided control combines position and rate control.

From Poulton 119
References
 1. Adams, J. A. Human Memory. New York: McGraw‐Hill, 1967.
 2. Adams, J. A. Response feedback and learning. Psychol. Bull. 70: 486–504, 1968.
 3. Adams, J. A. A closed‐loop theory of motor learning. J. Mot. Behav. 3: 111–150, 1971.
 4. Adams, J. A., Issues for a closed‐loop theory of motor learning. In: Motor Control: Issues and Trends, edited by G. E. Stelmach. New York: Academic, 1976, p. 87–107.
 5. Adams, J. A. Feedback theory of how joint receptors regulate the timing and positioning of a limb. Psychol. Rev. 84: 504–523, 1977.
 6. Adams, J. A., and S. Dijkstra. Short‐term memory for motor responses. J. Exp. Psychol. 71: 314–318, 1966.
 7. Allport, D. A., B. Antonis, and P. Reynolds. On the division of attention: a disproof of the single channel hypothesis. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 24: 225–235, 1972.
 8. Angel, R. W. Efference copy in the control of movement. Neurology 26: 1164–1168, 1976.
 9. Angel, R. W., H. Garland, and M. Fischler. Tracking errors amended without visual feedback. J. Exp. Psychol. 89: 422–424, 1971.
 10. Angel, R. W., and J. R. Higgins. Correction of false moves in pursuit tracking. J. Exp. Psychol. 82: 185–187, 1969.
 11. Bahrick, H. P., M. Noble, and P. M. Fitts. Extra‐task performance as a measure of learning a primary task. J. Exp. Psychol. 48: 298–302, 1954.
 12. Baker, C. H., and P. Young. Feedback during training and retention of motor skills. Can. J. Psychol. 14: 257–264, 1960.
 13. Barnes, G. R., and M. A. Gresty. Characteristics of eye movements to targets of short duration. Aerosp. Med. 44: 1236–1240, 1973.
 14. Bartlett, F. C. Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1932.
 15. Bartz, A. E. Fixation errors in eye movements to peripheral stimuli. J. Exp. Psychol. 75: 444–446, 1967.
 16. Bertelson, P. Central intermittency twenty years later. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 18: 153–163, 1966.
 17. Birmingham, H. P., and F. V. Taylor. A design philosophy for man‐machine control systems. Proc. Inst. Radio Eng. 42: 1748–1758, 1954. (In: Selected Papers on Human Factors in the Design and Use of Control Systems, edited by H. W. Sinaiko. New York: Dover, 1961, p. 67–87.).
 18. Brand, J. Classification without identification in visual search. Q. J. Exp. Psychol: 23: 178–186, 1971.
 19. Broadbent, D. E. Perception and Communication. Oxford: Pergamon, 1958.
 20. Brown, I. D. Subjective and objective comparisons of successful and unsuccessful trainee drivers. Ergonomics 9: 49–56, 1966.
 21. Brown, I. D., and E. C. Poulton. Measuring the spare “mental capacity” of car drivers by a subsidiary task. Ergonomics 4: 35–40, 1961.
 22. Brown, I. D., A. H. Tickner, and D. C. V. Simmonds. Interference between concurrent tasks of driving and telephoning. J. Appl. Psychol. 53: 419–424, 1969.
 23. Brown, J. Some tests of the decay theory of immediate memory. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 10: 12–21, 1958.
 24. Buck, L. Defining the boundary in a positioning task. Acta Psychol. 42: 7–19, 1978.
 25. Campbell, F. W., and R. H. Wurtz. Saccadic omission: why we do not see a grey‐out during a saccadic eye movement. Vision Res. 18: 1297–1303, 1978.
 26. Carlow, T., L. F. Dell'osso, B. T. Troost, R. B. Daroff, and J. E. Birkett. Saccadic eye movement latencies to multimodal stimuli. Vision Res. 15: 1257–1262, 1975.
 27. Carpenter, R. H. S. Movements of the Eyes. London: Pion, 1977.
 28. Chernikoff, R., and M. Le May. Effect of various display‐control configurations on tracking with identical and different coordinate dynamics. J. Exp. Psychol. 66: 95–99, 1963.
 29. Chernikoff, R., and F. V. Taylor. Reaction time to kinesthetic stimulation resulting from sudden arm displacement. J. Exp. Psychol. 43: 1–8, 1952.
 30. Conrad, R. The Deaf School Child. London: Harper & Row, 1979.
 31. Crago, P. E., J. C. Houk, and Z. Hasan. Regulatory actions of human stretch reflex. J. Neurophysiol. 39: 925–935, 1976.
 32. Craik, K. J. W. Theory of the human operator in control systems. 1. The operator as an engineering system. Br. J. Psychol. 38: 56–61, 1947.
 33. Craik, K. J. W., and M. A. Vince. Psychological and physiological aspects of control mechanisms. II. With special reference to ground‐tank and A. A. tank gunnery. Ergonomics 6: 419–440, 1963. (UK Med. Res. Counc. Mil. Personnel Res. Comm. Rep. BPC 44/322, London, 1944.).
 34. Crossman, E. R. F. W. A theory of the acquisition of speed‐skill. Ergonomics 2: 153–166, 1959.
 35. Davis, R. Choice reaction times and the theory of intermittency in human performance. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 14: 157–166, 1962.
 36. Davis, R., N. Moray, and A. Treisman. Imitative responses and the rate of gain of information. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 13: 78–89, 1961.
 37. Desmedt, J. E., and E. Godaux. Ballistic skilled movements: load compensation and patterning of motor commands. In: Progress in Clinical Neurophysiology. Cerebral Motor Control in Man: Long Loop Mechanisms, edited by J. E. Desmedt. Basel: Karger, 1978, vol. 4, p. 21–55.
 38. Dickinson, J. Adaptation level and retroactive interference in motor short‐term memory. Percept. Mot. Skills 44: 691–694, 1977.
 39. Diewert, G. L., and E. A. Roy. Coding strategy for memory of movement extent information. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Learn. Mem. 4: 666–675, 1978.
 40. Elkind, J. I. Characteristics of Simple Manual Control Systems. Lexington: MIT Lincoln Laboratory, 1956. (Tech. Rep. 111.).
 41. Ells, J. G. Analysis of temporal and attentional aspects of movement control. J. Exp. Psychol. 99: 10–21, 1973.
 42. Ellson, D. G., and L. Wheeler. The Range Effect. USAF Air Material Command, Dayton, OH: Wright‐Patterson Air Force Base, 1949. (Tech. Rep. 5813.).
 43. Eriksen, C. W., and J. S. Lappin. Selective attention and very short‐term recognition memory for nonsense forms. J. Exp. Psychol. 73: 358–364, 1967.
 44. Evarts, E. V., and R. Granit. Relations of reflexes and intended movements. In: Progress in Brain Research. Understanding the Stretch Reflex, edited by S. Homma. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1976, vol. 44, p. 1–14.
 45. Festinger, L., and L. K. Canon. Information about spatial location based on knowledge about efference. Psychol. Rev. 72: 373–384, 1965.
 46. Fitts, P. M., and J. R. Peterson. Information capacity of discrete motor responses. J. Exp. Psychol. 67: 103–112, 1964.
 47. Fitts, P. M., and C. M. Seeger. S‐R compatibility: spatial characteristics of stimulus and response codes. J. Exp. Psychol. 46: 199–210, 1953.
 48. Fitts, P. M., and G. Switzer. Cognitive aspects of information processing: 1. The familiarity of S‐R sets and subsets. J. Exp. Psychol. 63: 321–329, 1962.
 49. Flowers, K. Test of the ballistic hypothesis of movement and the ‘point of no return’. Nature London 268: 174–175, 1977.
 50. Garrity, L. I. Electromyography: a review of the current status of subvocal speech research. Mem. Cognit. 5: 615–622, 1977.
 51. Gibbs, C. B. Probability learning in step‐input tracking. Br. J. Psychol. 56: 233–242, 1965.
 52. Gordon, N. B. Learning a motor task under varied display conditions. J. Exp. Psychol. 57: 65–73, 1959.
 53. Greenwald, A. G. On doing two things at once: time sharing as a function of ideomotor compatibility. J. Exp. Psychol. 94: 52–57, 1972.
 54. Greenwald, A. G., and H. G. Schulman. On doing two things at once: II. Elimination of the psychological refractory period effect. J. Exp. Psychol. 101: 70–76, 1973.
 55. Gregory, R. L. Eye movements and the stability of the visual world. Nature London 182: 1214–1216, 1958.
 56. Gundry, J. The use of location and distance in reproducing different amplitudes of movement. J. Mot. Behav. 7: 91–100, 1975.
 57. Hagman, J. D. Specific‐cue effects of interpolated movements on distance and location retention in short‐term motor memory. Mem. Cognit. 6: 432–437, 1978.
 58. Hagman, J. D., and E. Williams. Use of distance and location in short‐term motor memory. Percept. Mot. Skills 44: 867–873, 1977.
 59. Henson, D. B. Corrective saccades: effects of altering visual feedback. Vision Res. 18: 63–67, 1978.
 60. Hick, W. E. On the rate of gain of information. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 4: 11–26, 1952.
 61. Higgins, J. R., and R. W. Angel. Correction of tracking errors without sensory feedback. J. Exp. Psychol. 84: 412–416, 1970.
 62. Ho, L., and J. B. Shea. Levels of processing and the coding of position cues in motor short‐term memory. J. Mot. Behav. 10: 113–122, 1978.
 63. Hollingworth, H. L. The central tendency in judgment. J. Philos. Psychol. Sci. Methods 7: 461–469, 1910.
 64. Hyman, R. Stimulus information as a determinant of reaction time. J. Exp. Psychol. 45: 188–196, 1953.
 65. Jaeger, R. J., G. C. Agarwal, and G. L. Gottlieb. Directional errors of movement and their correction in a discrete tracking task. J. Mot. Behav. 11: 123–133, 1979.
 66. Jones, B. Outflow and inflow in movement duplication. Percept. Psychophys. 12: 95–96, 1972.
 67. Jones, B. Role of central monitoring of efference in short‐term memory for movements. J. Exp. Psychol. 102: 37–43, 1974.
 68. Jones, B., and M. R. Hulme. Evidence for an outflow theory of skill. Acta Psychol. 40: 49–56, 1976.
 69. Kantowitz, B. H., and J. L. Knight, Jr. Testing tapping timesharing. II: auditory secondary task. Acta Psychol. 40: 343–362, 1976.
 70. Karlin, L., and R. Kestenbaum. Effects of number of alternatives on the psychological refractory period. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 20: 167–178, 1968.
 71. Keele, S. W., and J. G. Ells. Memory characteristics of kinesthetic information. J. Mot. Behav. 4: 127–134, 1972.
 72. Keele, S. W., and M. I. Posner. Processing of visual feedback in rapid movements. J. Exp. Psychol. 77: 155–158, 1968.
 73. Kelso, J. A. S. Motor control mechanisms underlying human movement reproduction. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 3: 529–543, 1977.
 74. Kelso, J. A. S. Planning and efferent components in the coding of movement. J. Mot. Behav. 9: 33–47, 1977.
 75. Kelso, J. A. S., and G. A. Frekany. Coding processes in preselected and constrained movements: effect of vision. Acta Psychol. 42: 145–161, 1978.
 76. Kerr, B. The effect of invalid task parameters on short‐term motor memory. J. Mot. Behav. 10: 261–273, 1978.
 77. Kowler, E., and R. M. Steinman. The effect of expectations on slow oculomotor control—I. Periodic target steps. Vision Res. 19: 619–632, 1979.
 78. Kowler, E., and R. M. Steinman. The effect of expectations on slow oculomotor control—II. Single target displacements. Vision Res. 19: 633–646, 1979.
 79. Laabs, G. J. Retention characteristics of different reproduction cues in motor short‐term memory. J. Exp. Psychol. 100: 168–177, 1973.
 80. Laberge, D., R. Legrand, and R. K. Hobbie. Functional identification of perceptual and response biases in choice reaction time. J. Exp. Psychol. 79: 295–299, 1969.
 81. Leonard, J. A. Tactual choice reactions: I. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 11: 76–83, 1959.
 82. Lincoln, R. S. Visual tracking: III. The instrumental dimension of motion in relation to tracking accuracy. J. Appl. Psychol. 37: 489–493, 1953.
 83. Mack, A., R. Fendrich, and S. Sirigatti. A rebound illusion in visual tracking. Am. J. Psychol. 86: 425–433, 1973.
 84. Marteniuk, R. G. Retention characteristics of motor short‐term memory cues. J. Mot. Behav. 5: 249–259, 1973.
 85. Marteniuk, R. G. Motor short‐term memory measures as a function of methodology. J. Mot. Behav. 9: 247–250, 1977.
 86. Marteniuk, R. G., and E. A. Roy. The codability of kinesthetic location and distance information. Acta Psychol. 36: 471–479, 1972.
 87. Marteniuk, R. G., K. W. Shields, and S. Campbell. Amplitude, position, timing and velocity as cues in reproduction of movement. Percept. Mot. Skills 35: 51–58, 1972.
 88. McLeod, P. D. Inference of “attend to and learn” tasks with tracking. J. Exp. Psychol. 99: 330–333, 1973.
 89. McLeod, P. A dual task response modality effect: support for multiprocessor models of attention. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 29: 651–667, 1977.
 90. McLeod, P. Parallel processing and the psychological refractory period. Acta Psychol. 41: 381–396, 1977.
 91. McLeod, P. Does probe RT measure central processing demand? Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 30: 83–89, 1978.
 92. McLeod, P., and J. Meirop. How to reduce manual response interference in the multiple task environment. Ergonomics 22: 469–475, 1979.
 93. McRuer, D. T., D. Graham, and E. S. Krendel. Manual control of single‐loop systems. Part I. J. Franklin Inst. 283: 1–29, 1967.
 94. McRuer, D. T., D. Graham, and E. S. Krendel. Manual control of single‐loop systems. Part II. J. Franklin Inst. 283: 145–168, 1967.
 95. Megaw, E. D. Directional errors and their correction in a discrete tracking task. Ergonomics 15: 633–643, 1972.
 96. Megaw, E. D., Saccadic eye‐movements and the refractory period. In: Attention and Performance V, edited by S. Kornblum. London: Academic, 1975, p. 383–394.
 97. Michael, J. A., and G. M. Jones. Dependence of visual tracking capability upon stimulus predictability. Vision Res. 6: 707–716, 1966.
 98. Moss, S. M. Simple reaction time and response sets. Hum. Factors 8: 231–244, 1966.
 99. Mowbray, G. H., and M. V. Rhoades. On the reduction of choice reaction times with practice. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 11: 16–23, 1959.
 100. Neisser, U. Decision‐time without reaction‐time: experiments in visual scanning. Am. J. Psychol. 76: 376–385, 1963.
 101. Nisbett, R. E., and T. De C. Wilson. Telling more than we can know: verbal reports on mental processes. Psychol. Rev. 84: 231–259, 1977.
 102. Noble, M., P. M. Fitts, and C. E. Warren. The frequency response of skilled subjects in a pursuit tracking task. J. Exp. Psychol. 49: 249–256, 1955.
 103. Norman, D. A., and D. G. Bobrow. On data‐limited and resource‐limited processes. Cognit. Psychol. 7: 44–64, 1975.
 104. Peters, R. W. The Effect of Low‐Pass Filtering of Sidetone Upon Speaker Intelligibility. Pensacola, FL: Naval Air Station, US Naval School of Aviation Medicine. (Joint Project Rep. No. 49, April 1955.).
 105. Peterson, L. R., and M. J. Peterson. Short‐term retention of individual verbal items. J. Exp. Psychol. 58: 193–198, 1959.
 106. Pew, R. W., Human perceptual‐motor performance. In: Human Information Processing: Tutorials in Performance and Cognition, edited by B. H. Kantowitz. New York: Wiley, 1974, p. 1–39.
 107. Pew, R. W., J. C. Duffendack, and L. K. Fensch. Sine‐wave tracking revisited. IEEE Trans. Hum. Factors Electron. HFE8: 130–134, 1967.
 108. Posner, M. I. Characteristics of visual and kinesthetic memory codes. J. Exp. Psychol. 75: 103–107, 1967.
 109. Posner, M. I., and S. J. Boies. Components of attention. Psychol. Rev. 78: 391–408, 1971.
 110. Poulton, E. C. Perceptual anticipation and reaction time. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 2: 99–112, 1950.
 111. Poulton, E. C. Perceptual Anticipation in Tracking. Cambridge, England: UK Med. Res. Counc. Appl. Psychol. Unit, 1950. (Rep. No. 118.).
 112. Poulton, E. C. The basis of perceptual anticipation in tracking. Br. J. Psychol. 43: 295–302, 1952.
 113. Poulton, E. C. On prediction in skilled movements. Psychol. Bull. 54: 467–478, 1957.
 114. Poulton, E. C. On the stimulus and response in pursuit tracking. J. Exp. Psychol. 53: 189–194, 1957.
 115. Poulton, E. C. Measuring the order of difficulty in visual‐motor tasks. Ergonomics 1: 234–239, 1958.
 116. Poulton, E. C. The Medical Research Council's Applied Psychology Unit. Murmer. Cambridge, England: Cambridge Univ. Med. Soc., 1964, vol. 38, p. 3–7.
 117. Poulton, E. C. Environment and Human Efficiency. Springfield, IL: Thomas, 1970.
 118. Poulton, E. C. Unwanted range effects from using within‐subject experimental designs. Psychol. Bull. 80: 113–121, 1973.
 119. Poulton, E. C. Tracking Skill and Manual Control. New York: Academic, 1974.
 120. Poulton, E. C. Range effects in experiments on people. Am. J. Psychol. 88: 3–32, 1975.
 121. Poulton, E. C. Composite model for human performance in continuous noise. Psychol. Rev. 86: 361–375, 1979.
 122. Poulton, E. C. Models for biases in judging sensory magnitude. Psychol. Bull. 86: 777–803, 1979.
 123. Poulton, E. C., and R. S. Edwards. Asymmetric transfer in within‐subjects experiments on stress interactions. Ergonomics 22: 945–961, 1979.
 124. Poulton, E. C., and P. R. Freeman. Unwanted asymmetrical transfer effects with balanced experimental designs. Psychol. Bull. 66: 1–8, 1966.
 125. Prablanc, C., and M. Jeannerod. Corrective saccades: dependence on retinal reafferent signals. Vision Res. 15: 465–469, 1975.
 126. Prablanc, C., D. Massé, and J. F. Echallier. Error‐correcting mechanisms in large saccades. Vision Res. 18: 557–560, 1978.
 127. Reitman, J. S. Mechanisms of forgetting in short‐term memory. Cognit. Psychol. 2: 131–157, 1971.
 128. Robinson, D. A. Models of the saccadic eye movement control system. Kybernetik 14: 71–83, 1973.
 129. Roediger, H. L. III, J. L. Knight, and B. H. Kantowitz. Inferring decay in short‐term memory: the issue of capacity. Mem. Cognit. 5: 167–176, 1977.
 130. Rosenbaum, D. A., and O. Patashnik. Time to time in the human motor system. In: Attention and Performance VIII, edited by R. S. Nickerson. Hillside, NJ: Erlbaum, 1980.
 131. Rosenthal, R. Covert communication in the psychological experiment. Psychol. Bull. 67: 356–367, 1967.
 132. Roy, E. A., and G. L. Diewert. Encoding of kinesthetic extent information. Percept. Psychophys. 17: 559–564, 1975.
 133. Sanders, A. F. Selective strategies in the assimilation of successively presented signals. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 16: 368–372, 1964.
 134. Schmidt, R. A. A schema theory of discrete motor skill learning. Psychol. Rev. 82: 225–260, 1975.
 135. Schmidt, R. A., and G. B. Gordon. Errors in motor responding, “rapid” corrections, and false anticipations. J. Mot. Behav. 9: 101–111, 1977.
 136. Schutz, R. W., and E. A. Roy. Absolute error: the devil in disguise. J. Mot. Behav. 5: 141–153, 1973.
 137. Shea, J. B. Effects of labeling on motor short‐term memory. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Learn. Mem. 3: 92–99, 1977.
 138. Shebilske, W. L. Extraretinal information in corrective saccades and inflow vs outflow theories of visual direction constancy. Vision Res. 16: 621–628, 1976.
 139. Shiffrin, R. M. Information persistence in short‐term memory. J. Exp. Psychol. 100: 39–49, 1973.
 140. Slack, C. W. Learning in simple one‐dimensional tracking. Am. J. Psychol. 66: 33–44, 1953.
 141. Slack, C. W. Some characteristics of the “range effect.” J. Exp. Psychol. 46: 76–80, 1953.
 142. Smith, M. C. Theories of the psychological refractory period. Psychol. Bull. 67: 202–213, 1967.
 143. Spelke, E., W. Hirst, and U. Neisser. Skills of divided attention. Cognition 4: 215–230, 1976.
 144. Stark, L., G. Vossius, and L. R. Young. Predictive control of eye tracking movements. IEEE Trans. Hum. Factors Electron. HFE3: 52–57, 1962.
 145. Stelmach, G. E. Kinesthetic recall and information reduction activity. J. Mot. Behav. 2: 183–194, 1970.
 146. Stelmach, G. E., J. A. S. Kelso, and P. D. McCullagh. Preselection and response biasing in short‐term motor memory. Mem. Cognit. 4: 62–66, 1976.
 147. Stelmach, G. E., J. A. S. Kelso, and S. A. Wallace. Preselection in short‐term motor memory. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Learn. Mem. 1: 745–755, 1975.
 148. Stelmach, G. E., and M. Wilson. Kinesthetic retention, movement extent, and information processing. J. Exp. Psychol. 85: 425–430, 1970.
 149. Sternberg, S. High‐speed scanning in human memory. Science 153: 652–654, 1966.
 150. Trumbo, D., and F. Milone. Primary task performance as a function of encoding, retention, and recall in a secondary task. J. Exp. Psychol. 91: 273–279, 1971.
 151. Trumbo, D., M. Noble, F. Fowler, and J. Porterfield. Motor performance on temporal tasks as a function of sequence length and coherence. J. Exp. Psychol. 77: 397–406, 1968.
 152. Vince, M. A. Some Exceptions to the Psychological Refractory Period in Unskilled Manual Responses. Cambridge, England: UK Med. Res. Counc. Appl. Psychol. Unit, 1950. (Rep. No. 124.).
 153. Watkins, M. J., O. C. Watkins, F. I. M. Craik, and G. Mazuryk. Effect of non‐verbal distraction on short‐term storage. J. Exp. Psychol. 101: 296–300, 1973.
 154. Way, T. C., and R. Gottsdanker. Psychological refractoriness with varying differences between tasks. J. Exp. Psychol. 78: 38–45, 1968.
 155. Weiss, B. Movement error, pressure variation, and the range effect. J. Exp. Psychol. 50: 191–196, 1955.
 156. Welford, A. T. The ‘psychological refractory period’ and the timing of high‐speed performance— a review and a theory. Br. J. Psychol. 43: 2–19, 1952.
 157. Welford, A. T. Evidence for a single‐channel decision mechanism limiting performance in a serial reaction task. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 11: 193–210, 1959.
 158. Welford, A. T. Single‐channel operation in the brain. Acta Psychol. 27: 5–22, 1967.
 159. Wheeless, L. L., Jr., R. M. Boynton, and G. H. Cohen. Eye‐movement responses to step and pulse‐step stimuli. J. Opt. Soc. Am. 56: 956–960, 1966.
 160. Woodworth, R. S. Experimental Psychology. New York: Holt, 1938.

Contact Editor

Submit a note to the editor about this article by filling in the form below.

* Required Field

Article Title: Human Manual Control
 

How to Cite

E. C. Poulton. Human Manual Control. Compr Physiol 2011, Supplement 2: Handbook of Physiology, The Nervous System, Motor Control: 1337-1389. First published in print 1981. doi: 10.1002/cphy.cp010230