An intense electrical stimulus can elicit a StartReact effect but with decreased incidence and later onset of the startle reflex.

Planned actions can be triggered involuntarily by a startling acoustic stimulus (SAS), resulting in very short reaction times (RT). This phenomenon, known as the StartReact effect, is thought to result from the startle-related activation of reticular structures. However, other sensory modalities also can elicit a reflexive startle response. Here, we assessed the effectiveness of an intense startling electric stimulus (SES) in eliciting the StartReact effect as compared to a SAS. We tested SES intensities at 15 and 25 times the perceptual threshold of each participant, as well as SAS intensities of 114 dB and 120 dB. The electrical stimulation electrodes were placed over short head of the biceps brachii on the arm not involved in the task. Intense electric and acoustic stimuli were presented on 20% of the trials in a simple RT paradigm requiring a targeted ballistic wrist extension movement. The proportion of trials showing short latency (≤ 120 ms) startle reflex-related activation in sternocleidomastoid was significantly lower on intense electrical stimulus trials compared to intense acoustic trials, and the startle response onset occurred significantly later on SES trials compared to SAS. However, when a startle reflex was observed, RTs related to the prepared movement were facilitated to a similar extent for both SES and SAS conditions, suggesting that the accelerated response latency associated with the StartReact effect is independent of stimulus type.

Switching between task control modes incurs greater reprogramming costs than programming the response de novo.

When performing synchronous hand and foot movements, the way the limbs are synchronized differs depending on the mode of control. When performed in a reaction time (RT) paradigm (reactive control), EMG onsets become synchronized resulting in asynchronous displacement onset. However, when the same movement is performed as an anticipation-timing task (predictive control), displacement onset is synchronized by unconsciously introducing a small delay between EMG onsets. The present experiment investigated the reprogramming costs associated with switching between predictive and reaction control modes. Participants (N = 12, 6F) were asked to simultaneously lift their right heel and right hand in an anticipation-timing task when a rotating clock hand reached a specified target. On some trials, an auditory stimulus was presented either 250 ms or 500 ms before the target and participants were instructed to execute the synchronous movement as quickly as possible after the signal (i.e., switch to reactive mode). Results showed that when the auditory stimulus was delivered 250 ms before the target, participants were unable to switch to a reactive control mode but did switch when the auditory stimulus was presented 500 ms before the target. As expected, the RT on switch trials was substantially longer (∼230 ms) than a simple RT control condition but was also significantly longer (∼130 ms) than a choice RT control condition. These results indicate that switching between control modes for a task involving the same musculature incurs reprogramming costs that are even greater than the time required to program the response de novo.

Chronic short sleep duration lengthens reaction time, but the deficit is not associated with motor preparation.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the association between chronic sleep duration and reaction time performance and motor preparation during a simple reaction time task with a startling acoustic stimulus in adults. This cross-sectional study included self-reported short sleepers (n = 25, ≤ 6 hr per night) and adequate sleepers (n = 25, ≥ 7.5 hr per night) who performed a simple reaction time task requiring a targeted ballistic wrist extension in response to either a control-tone (80 dB) or a startling acoustic stimulus (120 dB). Outcome measures included reaction times for each stimulus (overall and for each trial block), lapses, and proportion of startle responses. Chronic short sleepers slept on average 5.7 hr per night in the previous month, which was 2.8 hr per night less than the adequate sleepers. Results revealed an interaction between sleep duration group and stimulus type; the short sleepers had significantly slower control-tone reaction times compared with adequate sleepers, but there was no significant difference in reaction time between groups for the startling acoustic stimulus. Further investigation showed that chronic short sleepers had significantly slower control-tone reaction times after two blocks of trials lasting about 5 min, until the end of the task. Lapses were not significantly different between groups. Chronic short sleep duration was associated with poorer performance; however, these reaction time deficits cannot be attributed to motor preparation, as startling acoustic stimulus reaction times were not different between sleep duration groups. While time-on-task performance decrements were associated with chronic sleep duration, alertness was not. Sleeping less than the recommended sleep duration on a regular basis is associated with poorer cognitive performance, which becomes evident after 5 min.

Visual perceptual processing is unaffected by cognitive fatigue.

Cognitive fatigue (CF) can lead to an increase in the latency of simple reaction time, although the processes involved in this delay are unknown. One potential explanation is that a longer time may be required for sensory processing of relevant stimuli. To investigate this possibility, the current study used a visual inspection time task to measure perceptual processing speed before and after a CF (math and memory) or non-fatiguing (documentary film) intervention. Subjective fatigue and simple reaction time significantly increased following the CF, but not the non-fatiguing intervention, confirming that CF was induced. Conversely, there was no effect of CF on inspection time task performance. It was therefore concluded that the speed of perceptual processing is not significantly impacted by CF, and thus is unlikely to underlie CF-related reaction time increases. Instead, increases in simple reaction time latency in CF may be due to delays in response preparation or initiation.

The influence of foreperiod duration on the preparation and control of sequential aiming movements.

Reaction time (RT) and movement times (MTs) to the first target are typically longer for two-target sequential movements compared to one-target movements. While this one-target advantage has been shown to be dependent on the availability of advance information about the numbers of targets, there has been no systematic investigation of how foreperiod duration (i.e., interval between presentation of the target(s) and stimulus) influences the planning and execution of sequential movements. Two experiments were performed to examine how the one-target advantage is influenced by the availability and timing of advance target information. In Experiment 1, participants performed one- and two-target movements in two separate blocks. In Experiment 2, target conditions were randomised from trial to trial. The interval between target(s) appearing and stimulus tone (i.e., foreperiod) was varied randomly (0, 500, 1,000, 1,500, and 2,000 ms). The results of Experiment 1 revealed that while the one-target advantage in RT was not influenced by foreperiod duration, the one-target advantage in MT increased as foreperiod duration increased. The variability of endpoints at the first target was greater in the two- compared to one-target condition. In Experiment 2, the one-target advantage in both RT and MT increased as the length of the foreperiod increased. However, there was no difference in limb trajectory variability between target conditions. The implication of these findings for theories of motor planning and execution of multiple segment movements is discussed.

Increased EMG-EMG coherence in the theta and alpha bands during bimanual force modulation.

During the execution of movements, error correction processes have been inferred by EEG activation at oscillation frequencies in the theta (4-8 Hz) and alpha (8-12 Hz) bands. The current study examined whether evidence for error detection and correction could be found at the muscular level through the use of EMG-EMG coherence, which quantifies the amount of synchronous EMG activity between limbs in the frequency domain. Participants (n = 13) performed a bimanual force production task involving either wrist flexors or extensors under conditions in which the force was to be held constant or continuously modulated. As predicted, the modulation of changing force output resulted in significantly greater force variability and increased EMG-EMG coherence throughout the theta and alpha band for both flexor and extensor responses. These results are consistent with EEG activation frequencies associated with error correction, motor reprogramming and sustained attention and indicate that evidence for these cortical processes can also be observed at the muscular level in the form of correlated EMG frequency content between limbs.

Startle-triggered responses indicate reticulospinal drive is larger for voluntary shoulder versus finger movements.

Recent primate studies have implicated a substantial role of reticulospinal pathways in the production of various voluntary movements. A novel way to assess the relative reticulospinal contributions in humans is through the use of a "StartReact" paradigm where a startling acoustic stimulus (SAS) is presented during a simple reaction time (RT) task. The StartReact response is characterized by short-latency triggering of a prepared response, which is attributed to increased reticulospinal drive associated with startle reflex activation. The current study used a StartReact protocol to examine differences in reticulospinal contributions between proximal and distal effectors by examining EMG onset latencies in lateral deltoid and first dorsal interosseous during bilateral shoulder or finger abduction. The magnitude of the StartReact effect, and thus relative reticulospinal drive, was quantified as the difference in RT between startle trials in which startle-reflex related EMG activation in the sternocleidomastoid (SCM) was present (SCM +) versus absent (SCM -). A significantly larger StartReact effect was observed for bilateral shoulder abduction versus bimanual finger abduction and a higher incidence of SCM + trials occurred in the proximal task. Additionally, both startle reflex and response-related EMG measures were larger on SCM + trials for the shoulder versus finger task. These results provide compelling novel evidence for increased reticulospinal activation in bilateral proximal upper-limb movements.

Investigating motor preparation in synchronous hand and foot movements under reactive vs. predictive control.

Synchronizing hand and foot movements under reactive versus predictive control results in differential timing structures between the responses. Under reactive control, where the movement is externally triggered, the electromyographic (EMG) responses are synchronized, resulting in the hand displacement preceding the foot. Under predictive control, where the movement is self-paced, the motor commands are organized such that the displacement onset occurs relatively synchronously, requiring the EMG onset of the foot to precede that of the hand. The current study used a startling acoustic stimulus (SAS), which can involuntarily trigger a prepared response, to investigate whether these results are due to differences in a pre-programmed timing structure of the responses. Participants performed synchronous movements of the right heel and right hand under both reactive and predictive modes of control. The reactive condition involved a simple reaction time (RT) task, whereas the predictive condition involved an anticipation-timing task. On selected trials, a SAS (114 dB) was presented 150 ms prior to the imperative stimulus. Results from the SAS trials revealed that while the differential timing structures between the responses was maintained under both reactive and predictive control, the EMG onset asynchrony under predictive control was significantly smaller following the SAS. These results suggest that the timing between the responses, which differs between the two control modes, is pre-programmed; however, under predictive control, the SAS may accelerate the internal timekeeper, resulting in a shortened between-limb delay.

Slowed reaction times in cognitive fatigue are not attributable to declines in motor preparation.

Cognitive fatigue (CF) can result from sustained mental effort, is characterized by subjective feelings of exhaustion and cognitive performance deficits, and is associated with slowed simple reaction time (RT). This study determined whether declines in motor preparation underlie this RT effect. Motor preparation level was indexed using simple RT and the StartReact effect, wherein a prepared movement is involuntarily triggered at short latency by a startling acoustic stimulus (SAS). It was predicted that if decreased motor preparation underlies CF-associated RT increases, then an attenuated StartReact effect would be observed following cognitive task completion. Subjective fatigue assessment and a simple RT task were performed before and after a cognitively fatiguing task or non-fatiguing control intervention. On 25% of RT trials, a SAS replaced the go-signal to assess the StartReact effect. CF inducement was verified by significant declines in cognitive performance (p = 0.003), along with increases in subjective CF (p < 0.001) and control RT (p = 0.018) following the cognitive fatigue intervention, but not the control intervention. No significant pre-to-post-test changes in SAS RT were observed, indicating that RT increases resulting from CF are not substantially associated with declines in motor preparation, and instead may be attributable to other stages of processing during a simple RT task.

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Over Motor Areas Improves Reaction Time in Parkinson's Disease.

Background: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been shown to modulate cortical motor excitability and improve bradykinesia symptoms in Parkinson's disease. It is unclear how targeting different cortical motor areas with tDCS may differentially influence upper limb function for individuals diagnosed with PD. Objective: This study investigated whether anodal tDCS applied separately to the primary motor cortex and the supplementary motor area would improve upper limb function for individuals with Parkinson's disease. In addition, a startling acoustic stimulus was used to differentiate between the effect of stimulation on motor preparatory and initiation processes associated with upper limb movements. Methods: Eleven participants with idiopathic Parkinson's disease performed two upper limb simple reaction time tasks, involving elbow extension or a button press before and after either anodal tDCS or sham tDCS was applied over the primary motor cortex or supplementary motor area. A loud, startling stimulus was presented on a selection of trials to involuntarily trigger the prepared action. Results: Anodal tDCS led to improved premotor reaction time in both tasks, but this was moderated by reaction time in pre-tDCS testing, such that individuals with slower pre-tDCS reaction time showed the greatest reaction time improvements. Startle-trial reaction time was not modified following tDCS, suggesting that the stimulation primarily modulated response initiation processes. Conclusion: Anodal tDCS improved response initiation speed, but only in slower reacting individuals with PD. However, no differences attributable to tDCS were observed in clinical measures of bradykinesia or kinematic variables, suggesting that reaction time may represent a more sensitive measure of some components of bradykinesia.

A TMS-induced cortical silent period delays the contralateral limb for bimanual symmetrical movements and the reaction time delay is reduced on startle trials.

Bimanual actions are typically initiated and executed in a temporally synchronous manner, likely due to planning bilateral commands as a single motor "program." Applying high-intensity transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to the motor cortex can result in a contralateral cortical silent period that delays reaction time (RT), if timed to coincide with the final motor output stage. The current study examined the impact of a unilateral TMS silent period on the RT and interlimb timing of bilateral wrist extension. In addition, because a loud, startling acoustic stimulus (SAS) can result in the involuntary release of preprogrammed actions via increased reticulospinal activation, it was of interest whether startle-induced speeding of response initiation would moderate the impact of the TMS-induced RT delay. Participants performed blocks of unilateral and bilateral wrist extension in response to an acoustic (82 dB) go-signal. On selected trials, either TMS was applied to the left motor cortex 70 ms before the expected EMG response onset, a SAS (120 dB) replaced the go-signal, or both TMS and SAS were delivered. Results showed that TMS led to a significant RT delay in the right limb during both unimanual and bimanual extension but had no impact on the left limb initiation. In addition, the magnitude of the right limb RT delay was smaller when the response was triggered by a SAS. These results imply that preplanned bimanually synchronous movements are susceptible to lateralized dissociation late into the cortical motor output stage and movements triggered by startle involve increased reticulospinal output.NEW & NOTEWORTHY Bilateral responses are typically planned synchronously and performed symmetrically. Here, we show that delaying the initiation of one limb using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to produce a cortical silent period does not impact the other limb during bimanual movements. Also, the TMS-induced delay is reduced when a startling acoustic stimulus (SAS) triggers the movement. These results confirm that tightly coupled bilateral responses can be dissociated by contralateral TMS- and SAS-triggered responses involve greater reticulospinal output.

Response preparation of a secondary reaction time task is influenced by movement phase within a continuous visuomotor tracking task.

The simultaneous performance of two motor tasks is challenging. Currently, it is unclear how response preparation of a secondary task is impacted by the performance of a continuous primary task. The purpose of the present experiment was to investigate whether the position of the limb performing the primary cyclical tracking task impacts response preparation of a secondary reaction time task. Participants (n = 20) performed a continuous tracking task with their left hand that involved cyclical and targeted wrist flexion and extension. Occasionally, a probe reaction time task requiring isometric wrist extension was performed with the right hand in response to an auditory stimulus (80 or 120 dB) that was triggered when the left hand passed through one of 10 locations identified within the movement cycle. On separate trials, transcranial magnetic stimulation was applied over the left primary motor cortex and triggered at the same 10 stimulus locations to assess corticospinal excitability associated with the probe reaction time task. Results revealed that probe reaction times were significantly longer and motor-evoked potential amplitudes were significantly larger when the left hand was in the middle of a movement cycle compared with an endpoint, suggesting that response preparation of a secondary probe reaction time task was modulated by the phase of movement within the continuous primary task. These results indicate that primary motor task requirements can impact preparation of a secondary task, reinforcing the importance of considering primary task characteristics in dual-task experimental design.

Retrospective composite analysis of StartReact data indicates sex differences in simple reaction time are not attributable to response preparation.

Simple reaction time (RT) can vary by sex, with males generally displaying faster RTs than females. Although several explanations have been offered, the possibility that response preparation differences may underlie the effect of sex on simple RT has not yet been explored. A startling acoustic stimulus (SAS) can involuntarily trigger a prepared motor response (i.e., StartReact effect), and as such, RT latencies on SAS trials and the proportion of these trials demonstrating startle-reflex EMG in the sternocleidomastoid (SCM) muscle are used as indirect measures of response preparation. The present study employed a retrospective analysis of composite individual participant data (IPD) from 25 datasets published between 2006 and 2019 to examine sex differences in response preparation. Linear mixed effects models assessed the effect of sex on control and SAS RT as well as the proportion of SAS trials with SCM activation while controlling for study design. Results indicated significantly longer control RT in female participants as compared to males (p = .017); however, there were no significant sex differences in SAS RT (p = .441) or the proportion of trials with startle reflex activity (p = .242). These results suggest that sex differences in simple RT are not explained by variations in levels of response preparation but instead may be the result of differences in perceptual processing and/or response initiation processes.

Response triggering by an acoustic stimulus increases with stimulus intensity and is best predicted by startle reflex activation.

In a simple reaction time task, the presentation of a startling acoustic stimulus has been shown to trigger the prepared response at short latency, known as the StartReact effect. However, it is unclear under what conditions it can be assumed that the loud stimulus results in response triggering. The purpose of the present study was to examine how auditory stimulus intensity and preparation level affect the probability of involuntary response triggering and the incidence of activation in the startle reflex indicator of sternocleidomastoid (SCM). In two reaction time experiments, participants were presented with an irrelevant auditory stimulus of varying intensities at various time points prior to the visual go-signal. Responses were independently categorized as responding to either the auditory or visual stimulus and those with or without SCM activation (i.e., SCM+/-). Both the incidence of response triggering and proportion of SCM+ trials increased with stimulus intensity and presentation closer to the go-signal. Data also showed that participants reacted to the auditory stimulus at a much higher rate on trials where the auditory stimulus elicited SCM activity versus those that did not, and a logistic regression analysis confirmed that SCM activation is a reliable predictor of response triggering for all conditions.

Transcranial direct current stimulation of supplementary motor area improves upper limb kinematics in Parkinson's disease.

OBJECTIVE: Bradykinesia, defined as slowness of movements, is among the most functionally debilitating symptoms of Parkinson's disease (PD). Hypoactivation of cortical neurons in supplementary motor area (SMA) has been linked to the progression of bradykinesia symptoms. This study investigated the influence of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) applied over SMA on upper limb movement for individuals diagnosed with PD. METHODS: Thirteen individuals with PD performed a simple reaction time (RT) task involving elbow extension following an auditory go-signal. Sham or anodal tDCS was then applied over SMA for 10 minutes before participants repeated the simple RT task. Participants were unaware of which stimulation they received in each testing session. Electromyography (EMG) and kinematic data were recorded on all trials. RESULTS: While there were no significant differences in premotor RT, anodal tDCS applied over SMA led to significantly shorter time to peak displacement (p = .015) and movement time (p = .003) compared to pre-tDCS trials, whereas sham stimulation had no impact on these variables. CONCLUSIONS: These results provide evidence that anodal tDCS applied over SMA contributes to improvements in movement kinematics of an upper limb simple RT task. SIGNIFICANCE: Anodal tDCS over SMA could be a useful therapy to mitigate bradykinesia associated with PD.

Bimanual but not unimanual finger movements are triggered by a startling acoustic stimulus: evidence for increased reticulospinal drive for bimanual responses.

The relative contributions of reticulospinal versus corticospinal pathways for movement production are thought to be dependent on the type of response involved. For example, unilateral distal movements involving the hand and finger have been thought to be primarily driven by corticospinal output, whereas bilateral responses are considered to have greater reticulospinal drive. The current study investigated whether a difference in the relative contribution of reticulospinal drive to a bimanual versus unimanual finger movement could be assessed using a StartReact protocol. The StartReact effect refers to the early and involuntary initiation of a prepared movement when a startle reflex is elicited. A decreased response latency on loud stimulus trials where a startle reflex is observed in sternocleidomastoid (SCM+ trials) confirms the StartReact effect, which is attributed to increased reticulospinal drive associated with engagement of the startle reflex circuitry. It was predicted that a StartReact effect would be absent for the predominantly corticospinal-mediated unimanual finger movement but present for the bimanual finger movement due to stronger reticulospinal drive. Results supported both predictions as reaction time was statistically equivalent for SCM+ and SCM- trials during unimanual finger movements but significantly shorter for SCM+ trials during bimanual finger movements. These results were taken as strong and novel evidence for increased reticulospinal output for bimanual finger movements.NEW & NOTEWORTHY The relative contributions of reticulospinal and corticospinal pathways to movement initiation are relatively unknown but appear to depend on the involved musculature. Here, we show that unimanual finger movements, which are predominantly initiated via corticospinal pathways, are not triggered at short latency by a startling acoustic stimulus (SAS), while bimanual finger movements are triggered by the SAS. This distinction is attributed to increased reticulospinal drive for bilateral responses.

An unperceived acoustic stimulus decreases reaction time to visual information in a patient with cortical deafness.

Responding to multiple stimuli of different modalities has been shown to reduce reaction time (RT), yet many different processes can potentially contribute to multisensory response enhancement. To investigate the neural circuits involved in voluntary response initiation, an acoustic stimulus of varying intensities (80, 105, or 120 dB) was presented during a visual RT task to a patient with profound bilateral cortical deafness and an intact auditory brainstem response. Despite being unable to consciously perceive sound, RT was reliably shortened (~100 ms) on trials where the unperceived acoustic stimulus was presented, confirming the presence of multisensory response enhancement. Although the exact locus of this enhancement is unclear, these results cannot be attributed to involvement of the auditory cortex. Thus, these data provide new and compelling evidence that activation from subcortical auditory processing circuits can contribute to other cortical or subcortical areas responsible for the initiation of a response, without the need for conscious perception.

Startle and the StartReact Effect: Physiological Mechanisms.

It has been well documented that a prepared response can be triggered at short latency following the presentation of a loud acoustic stimulus that evokes a reflexive startle response. Different hypotheses have been proposed for this so-called "StartReact" effect, although there is still much debate surrounding the physiological mechanisms involved in the observed reduction in reaction time (RT). In this review, we outline the various neurophysiological explanations underlying the StartReact effect and summarize the data supporting, and at times opposing, each possibility. Collectively, the experimental results do not unequivocally support a single explanation and we suggest the most parsimonious mechanism may involve a hybrid framework involving a distribution of neural pathways. Specifically, we propose that multiple node networks at the cortical, brainstem, and spinal levels are involved in response preparation and initiation, and the relative contributions of these structures depends on the type of stimulus delivered and the type of movement required. This approach may lead to greater understanding of the pathways involved in response preparation, initiation, and execution for both healthy and motor disordered populations.

StartReact effects are dependent on engagement of startle reflex circuits: support for a subcortically mediated initiation pathway.

The "StartReact" effect refers to the rapid involuntary triggering of a prepared movement in response to a loud startling acoustic stimulus (SAS). This effect is typically confirmed by the presence of short-latency electromyographic activity in startle reflex-related muscles such as the sternocleidomastoid (SCM); however, there is debate regarding the specific neural pathways involved in the StartReact effect. Some research has implicated a subcortically mediated pathway, which would predict different response latencies depending on the presence of a startle reflex. Alternatively, other research has suggested that this effect involves the same pathways responsible for voluntary response initiation and simply reflects higher preparatory activation levels, and thus faster voluntary initiation. To distinguish between these competing hypotheses, the present study assessed preparation level during a simple reaction time (RT) task involving wrist extension in response to a control tone or a SAS. Premotor RT and startle circuitry engagement (as measured by SCM activation) were determined for each trial. Additionally, preparation level at the go signal on each trial was measured using motor-evoked potentials (MEP) elicited by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). Results showed that SAS trial RTs were significantly shorter (P = 0.009) in the presence of startle-related SCM activity. Nevertheless, preparation levels (as indexed by MEP amplitude) were statistically equivalent between trials with and without SCM activation. These results indicate that the StartReact effect relates to engagement of the startle reflex circuitry rather than simply being a result of an increased level of preparatory activation.NEW & NOTEWORTHY The neural mechanism underlying the early triggering of goal-directed actions by a startling acoustic stimulus (SAS) is unclear. We show that although significant reaction time differences were evident depending on whether the SAS elicited a startle reflex, motor preparatory activation was the same. Thus, in a highly prepared state, the short-latency responses associated with the StartReact effect appear to be related to engagement of startle reflex circuitry, not differences in motor preparatory level.

Visual processing is diminished during movement execution.

Recent research has suggested that visual discrimination and detection may be enhanced during movement preparation and execution, respectively. The current study examined if visual perceptual processing is augmented prior to or during a movement through the use of an Inspection Time (IT) task. The IT task involved briefly presenting (e.g., 15-105 ms) a "pi" figure with differing leg lengths, which was then immediately masked for 400 ms to prevent retinal afterimages. Participants were subsequently required to choose which of the two legs was longer. In Experiment 1, participants (n = 28) completed the IT task under three movement conditions: no-movement (NM), foreperiod (FP), and peak velocity (PV). In the NM condition, participants solely engaged in the IT paradigm. In the FP condition, the IT stimulus was presented prior to movement execution when response planning was expected to occur. Finally, in the PV condition, participants made a rapid movement to a target, and the IT stimulus was presented when their limb reached peak velocity. In Experiment 2, participants (n = 18) also performed the IT task in the PV and NM condition; however, vision of the limb's motion was made available during the PV trials (PV-FV) to investigate the potential influence of visual feedback on IT performance. Results showed no significant differences in performance in the IT task between the NM and FP conditions, suggesting no enhancement of visual processing occurred due to response preparation (Experiment 1). However, IT performance was significantly poorer in the PV condition in comparison to both the NM and FP conditions (Experiment 1), and was even worse when visual feedback was provided (Experiment 2). Together, these findings suggest that visual perceptual processing is degraded during execution of a fast, goal-directed movement.