Control strategy under pressure situations: performance pressure conditionally enhances proactive control.

Previous research and theories have demonstrated that attentional control plays a crucial role in explaining the choking phenomenon (i.e., the performance decrements) under pressure situations. Attentional control is thought to function through two distinct control strategies: proactive control (i.e., a sustained and anticipatory strategy of control) and reactive control (i.e., a transient strategy of control). However, little is known about how performance pressure affects these control strategies. The present study was designed to address this issue. Participants were instructed to complete a continuous performance task (AX-CPT40) under pressure situations. The results showed that individuals under high-pressure situations tended to use proactive control rather than reactive control. Moreover, performance pressure resulted in a more liberal response bias following an A-cue, consistent with an increased use of proactive control. Importantly, the proactive behavioral index calculated on RTs showed that the increased proactive control mainly occurred in the short interval between the cue and probe, but not in the long interval. This suggests that individuals under high-pressure situations are unlikely to employ a proactive control strategy in a situation that requires more attentional resources. In summary, our results provide initial evidence that performance pressure conditionally enhances proactive control, which contributes to a deeper understanding of the dynamic adjustment of control strategies under pressure situations.

Lipidomic markers for the prediction of progression from mild cognitive impairment to Alzheimer's disease.

Dementia is a well-known syndrome and Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the main cause of dementia. Lipids play a key role in the pathogenesis of AD, however, the prediction value of serum lipidomics on AD remains unclear. This study aims to construct a lipid score system to predict the risk of progression from mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to AD. First, we used the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) Cox regression model to select the lipids that can signify the progression from MCI to AD based on 310 older adults with MCI. Then we constructed a lipid score based on 14 single lipids using Cox regression and estimated the association between the lipid score and progression from MCI to AD. The prevalence of AD in the low-, intermediate- and high-score groups was 42.3%, 59.8%, and 79.8%, respectively. The participants in the intermediate- and high-score group had a 1.65-fold (95% CI 1.10 to 2.47) and 3.55-fold (95% CI 2.40 to 5.26) higher risk of AD, respectively, as compared to those with low lipid scores. The lipid score showed moderate prediction efficacy (c-statistics > 0.72). These results suggested that the score system based on serum lipidomics is useful for the prediction of progression from MCI to AD.

Effect of icon size, icon position and sex on clicking motion when operating smartphones with single hand.

Nowadays, increasingly more situations exist where smartphones are operated with one hand, requiring an in-depth understanding of human-computer interaction in single-hand scenarios. 104 volunteers (57 men, 47 women) participated in this study. We aimed to explore thumb movements with the right and left hand on smartphone touchscreens at different icon sizes (50, 80, 110 and 140 rpx) in different operation areas (a 4*7 icon matrix). The results partially conformed to Fitts' Law. The movement time (MT) significantly increased as the icon size decreased, but this effect was not found over 110 rpx. The MT increased with distance in the vertical direction, but icons with the same horizontal distance had different MTs, indicating that one-handed operation restricted the click on the same side. Additionally, subjects rated 140 rpx better than other sizes, and men clicked faster than women. Suggestions regarding one-handed interface design for different hands of different sexes are provided.Practitioner summary: This study investigated how icon size, position and sex influenced one-thumb click usability on touch-screen mobile phones with different hands of different sexes. The results indicate single-hand operation partially conformed to Fitts' Law. We suggested the most economical and comfortable size and the fast operation area in one-handed interface design.Abbreviations: MT: movement time; ID: index of difficulty; RPX: responsive pixel; NASA-TLX: task load index of National Aeronautics and Space Administration; ANOVA: analysis of variance.

Sleep Deprivation Influences Trial-to-Trial Transfer but Not Task Performance.

Previous research has shown that sleep deprivation can affect emotions and some cognitive functions. However, research on how sleep deprivation influences the visuomotor memory have rarely been reported. In the current study, a Fitts' Law task was used to investigate how movement and the visuomotor memory are affected under the condition of sleep deprivation. Experiment 1 had 36 participants (15 males, mean age = 21.61 years) complete the same Fitts' Law task 10 days apart under standard conditions. Experiment 2 had five participants (three males, mean age = 27.2 years) complete the task after 7 days of sleep deprivation, then complete it again after 10 days without sleep deprivation. Experiment 1 demonstrated the stability of the trial-to-trial effects. Experiment 2 showed that the previous trial (n) exerted no effect on the current trial (n + 1) under the conditions of sleep deprivation (p = 0.672). However, the effect was observed after 10 days without sleep deprivation (p = 0.013). This suggests that sleep deprivation did not affect task performance but influenced the transfer of the trial history. Future studies are required to investigate the effect of sleep deprivation with more participants.

Validating the "Two Faces" of Envy: The Effect of Self-Control.

Envy drives different behaviors, and while we often emphasize the negative effects of envy, there are also relatively positive aspects. This study explored the "two faces" of envy or behaviors that improve oneself or degrade others. In study 1 (N=466, 45.1% males and 54.9% females; M age=18.53, SD age=2.05), we modeled the effects of envy and self-control on effort and aggression. In study 2 (N=102, 51% males and 49% females; M age=20.56, SD age=1.88), we explored the influence of envy on striving behavior and aggressive behavior using an ego depletion paradigm. The different effects of envy on different levels were doubly verified. We established structural equation models of the interactions of benign envy, malicious envy, self-control, and associated behaviors, and we found that: (1) Individuals' striving behavior was only affected by benign envy; (2) Individuals' aggressive behavior was influenced by both malicious envy and self-control. Ego depletion moderated the effect of malicious envy on aggressive behavior.

The Influence of Induced Emotions on Distance and Size Perception and on the Grip Scaling During Grasping.

Previous studies have shown that our perception of stimulus properties can be affected by the emotional nature of the stimulus. It is not clear, however, how emotions affect visually-guided actions toward objects. To address this question, we used toy rats, toy squirrels, and wooden blocks to induce negative, positive, and neutral emotions, respectively. Participants were asked to report the perceived distance and the perceived size of a target object resting on top of one of the three emotion-inducing objects; or to grasp the same target object either without visual feedback (open-loop) or with visual feedback (closed-loop) of both the target object and their grasping hand during the execution of grasping. We found that the target object was perceived closer and larger, but was grasped with a smaller grip aperture in the rat condition than in the squirrel and the wooden-block conditions when no visual feedback was available. With visual feedback present, this difference in grip aperture disappeared. These results showed that negative emotion influences both perceived size and grip aperture, but in opposite directions (larger perceived size but smaller grip aperture) and its influence on grip aperture could be corrected by visual feedback, which revealed different effects of emotion to perception and action. Our results have implications on the understanding of the relationship between perception and action in emotional condition, which showed the novel difference from previous theories.

How long is the interval over which trial-to-trial effects on Fitts' Law task can operate?

Fitts' Law is a well-studied principle in psychology which holds that movement time (MT) varies with the size and distance of a target across a wide range of tasks. In a recent study, the authors demonstrated that performance on a current trial in a Fitts' Law paradigm is affected by what happens during the previous trial (Tang et al. in Psychon Bull Rev 25(5):1833-1839, 2018). The aim of the present study was to explore how long this trial-to-trial transfer might last and whether or not the transfer would occur between the left and right hands. A series of experiments was carried out using discrete trials, a paradigm in which the current authors and others have previously established that Fitts' Law operates (Fitts and Peterson in J Exp Psychol 67(2):103-112, 1964; Tang et al. 2018). Three inter-trial intervals (3 s, 4 s, and 5 s) were used in separate testing sessions, the order of which was counterbalanced across participants. In addition, trial-to-trial transfer was tested within a single hand and between hands. The results demonstrate that transfer from one trial to the next could bridge 4 s when either the right or the left hand was used and would disappear by 5 s. Moreover, the effect transferred between the two hands. The endpoint accuracy of the current trial was not affected by the previous trial. These findings suggest that the trial-to-trial effect reduces over time and that the transfer of sensorimotor memory or the task set is independent of the particular hand used.

[A review on behavior and brain imaging research of human visually-guided action].

Bipedalism (using only two legs for walking) and having the capability to use tools have long been considered characteristic features that differentiate human beings from animals. Being able to walk upright freed up human hands, allowing us to reach, grasp, carry food, make and use tools, which greatly increased the survivability of our ancestors. Hand actions not only involve muscles and joints to execute actions but also require computations in the brain to analyze the visual environment and select the appropriate action, as well as formulate the action before execution and correct it in real-time during execution. Here, we review the behavioral and brain imaging research of human hand actions from a perspective of cognitive neuroscience. The review includes the research contents and methods of visually-guided action, existing theories, current debates, new evidence of existing theories, and the applications of action research in robotics and artificial intelligence.

Tool-Use Training Induces Changes of the Body Schema in the Limb Without Using Tool.

Previous studies have shown that tool use affects the plasticity of the body schema. In other words, people will perceive the tool as a part of their body, and thus feel like they have "longer limbs" after using tools. However, it is unclear whether tool embodiment could spread to a limb that is not using the tool, and whether other limbs could utilize the proprioception of a limb. In Experiment 1, blindfolded participants were asked to search with a cane (Condition 1) or to walk with a cane (Condition 2). The results in Condition 1 illustrated that the tactile distance perception on the forearm was lengthened after tool use, while other body parts did not significantly change. In Condition 2, the tactile distance perception on the hand and forearm extended significantly after using tools. Additionally, tool-use training even induced an increased perception of the calf that was not using the tool. Possible interference from the difference between walking and standing was excluded in Experiment 2. These results demonstrate that the proprioception information of one limb could be exploited by another limb to extend the body schema even though that limb was not using a tool. It was also observed that the effect of direction was task-dependent in the tactile perception task.

The left hand disrupts subsequent right hand grasping when their actions overlap.

Adaptive motor control is premised on the principle of movement minimization, which in turn is premised on a form of sensorimotor memory. But what is the nature of this memory and under what conditions does it operate? Here, we test the limits of sensorimotor memory in an intermanual context by testing the effect that the action performed by the left hand has on subsequent right hand grasps. Target feature-overlap predicts that sensorimotor memory is engaged when task-relevant sensory features of the target are similar across actions; partial effector-overlap predicts that sensorimotor memory is engaged when there is similarity in the task-relevant effectors used to perform an action; and the action-goal conjunction hypotheses predicts that sensorimotor memories are engaged when the action goal and the action type overlap. In three experiments, participants used their left hand to reach out and pick up an object, manually estimate its size, pinch it, look at it, or merely rest the left hand before reaching out to pick up a second object with their right hand. The in-flight anticipatory grip aperture of right-hand grasps was only influenced when it was preceded by grasps performed by the left-hand. Overlap in the sizes of the objects, partial overlap in the effectors used, and in the availability of haptic feedback bore no influence on this metric. These results support the hypothesis that intermanual transfer of sensorimotor memory on grasp execution is dependent on a conjunction of action type and goal.

Fitts' Law is modulated by movement history.

Fitts' Law is one of the most robust and well-studied principles in psychology. It holds that movement time (MT) for target-directed aiming movements increases as a function of target distance and decreases as a function of target width. The purpose of this study was to determine whether Fitts' Law is affected not only by the demands of the target on the current trial but also by the requirements for performance on the previous trial. Experiments 1 and 2 examined trial-to-trial effects of varying target width; Experiment 3 examined trial-to-trial effects of varying target distance. The findings from Experiments 1 and 2 showed that moving a finger or cursor towards a large object on a previous trial shortened the movement time on the current trial, whereas the opposite occurred with a small object. In contrast, target distance on the previous trial had no effect on movement time on the current trial. These findings suggest that performance on trial n has a clear and predictable effect on trial n+1 (at least for target width) and that Fitts' Law as it is normally expressed does not accurately predict performance when the width of the target varies from trial to trial.

Programming of left hand exploits task set but that of right hand depends on recent history.

There are many differences between the left hand and the right hand. But it is not clear if there is a difference in programming between left hand and right hand when the hands perform the same movement. In current study, we carried out two experiments to investigate whether the programming of two hands was equivalent or they exploited different strategies. In the first experiment, participants were required to use one hand to grasp an object with visual feedback or to point to the center of one object without visual feedback on alternate trials, or to grasp an object without visual feedback and to point the center of one object with visual feedback on alternating trials. They then performed the tasks with the other hand. The result was that previous pointing task affected current grasping when it was performed by the left hand, but not the right hand. In experiment 2, we studied if the programming of the left (or right) hand would be affected by the pointing task performed on the previous trial not only by the same hand, but also by the right (or left) hand. Participants pointed and grasped the objects alternately with two hands. The result was similar with Experiment 1, i.e., left-hand grasping was affected by right-hand pointing, whereas right-hand grasping was immune from the interference from left hand. Taken together, the results suggest that when open- and closed-loop trials are interleaved, motor programming of grasping with the right hand was affected by the nature of the online feedback on the previous trial only if it was a grasping trial, suggesting that the trial-to-trial transfer depends on sensorimotor memory and not on task set. In contrast, motor programming of grasping with the left hand can use information about the nature of the online feedback on the previous trial to specify the parameters of the movement, even when the type of movement that occurred was quite different (i.e., pointing) and was performed with the right hand. This suggests that trial-to-trial transfer with the left hand depends on some sort of carry-over of task set for dealing with the availability of visual feedback.

Unusual hand postures but not familiar tools show motor equivalence with precision grasping.

A central question in sensorimotor control is whether or not actions performed with the hands and corresponding actions performed with tools share a common underlying motor plan, even though different muscles and effectors are engaged. There is certainly evidence that tools used to extend the reach of the limb can be incorporated into the body schema after training. But even so, it is not clear whether or not actions such as grasping with tools and grasping with the fingers share the same programming network, i.e. show 'motor equivalence'. Here we first show that feedback-appropriate motor programming for grasps with atypical hand postures readily transfers to stereotypical precision grasps. In stark contrast, however, we find no evidence for an analogous transfer of the programming for grasps using tools to the same stereotypical precision grasps. These findings have important implications for our understanding of body schema. Although the extension of the limb that is afforded by tool use may be incorporated into the body schema, the programming of a grasping movement made with tools appears to resist such incorporation. It could be the case that the proprioceptive signals from the limb can be easily updated to reflect the end of a tool held in the hand, but the motor programs and sensory signals associated with grasping with the thumb and finger cannot be easily adapted to control the opening and closing of a tool. Instead, new but well-practiced motor programs are put in place for tool use that do not exhibit motor equivalence with manual grasping.

The influence of visual feedback from the recent past on the programming of grip aperture is grasp-specific, shared between hands, and mediated by sensorimotor memory not task set.

Goal-directed movements, such as reaching out to grasp an object, are necessarily constrained by the spatial properties of the target such as its size, shape, and position. For example, during a reach-to-grasp movement, the peak width of the aperture formed by the thumb and fingers in flight (peak grip aperture, PGA) is linearly related to the target's size. Suppressing vision throughout the movement (visual open loop) has a small though significant effect on this relationship. Visual open loop conditions also produce a large increase in the PGA compared to when vision is available throughout the movement (visual closed loop). Curiously, this differential effect of the availability of visual feedback is influenced by the presentation order: the difference in PGA between closed- and open-loop trials is smaller when these trials are intermixed (an effect we have called 'homogenization'). Thus, grasping movements are affected not only by the availability of visual feedback (closed loop or open loop) but also by what happened on the previous trial. It is not clear, however, whether this carry-over effect is mediated through motor (or sensorimotor) memory or through the interference of different task sets for closed-loop and open-loop feedback that determine when the movements are fully specified. We reasoned that sensorimotor memory, but not a task set for closed and open loop feedback, would be specific to the type of response. We tested this prediction in a condition in which pointing to targets was alternated with grasping those same targets. Critically, in this condition, when pointing was performed in open loop, grasping was always performed in closed loop (and vice versa). Despite the fact that closed- and open-loop trials were alternating in this condition, we found no evidence for homogenization of the PGA. Homogenization did occur, however, in a follow-up experiment in which grasping movements and visual feedback were alternated between the left and the right hand, indicating that sensorimotor (or motor) memory can operate both within and between hands when the response type is kept the same. In a final experiment, we ruled out the possibility that simply alternating the hand used to perform the grasp interferes with motor or sensorimotor memory. We did this by showing that when the hand was alternated within a block of exclusively closed- or open-loop trials, homogenization of the PGA did not occur. Taken together, the results suggest that (1) interference from simply switching between task sets for closed or open-loop feedback or from switching between the hands cannot account homogenization in the PGA and that (2) the programming and execution of grasps can borrow not only from grasping movements executed in the past by the same hand, but also from grasping movements executed with the other hand.

Explicit knowledge about the availability of visual feedback affects grasping with the left but not the right hand.

Previous research (Whitwell et al. in Exp Brain Res 188:603-611, 2008; Whitwell and Goodale in Exp Brain Res 194:619-629, 2009) has shown that trial history, but not anticipatory knowledge about the presence or absence of visual feedback on an upcoming trial, plays a vital role in determining how that feedback is exploited when grasping with the right hand. Nothing is known about how the non-dominant left hand behaves under the same feedback regimens. In present study, therefore, we compared peak grip aperture (PGA) for left- and right-hand grasps executed with and without visual feedback (i.e., closed- vs. open-loop conditions) in right-handed individuals under three different trial schedules: the feedback conditions were blocked separately, they were randomly interleaved, or they were alternated. When feedback conditions were blocked, the PGA was much larger for open-loop trials as compared to closed-loop trials, although this difference was more pronounced for right-hand grasps than left-hand grasps. Like Whitwell et al., we found that mixing open- and closed-loop trials together, compared to blocking them separately, homogenized the PGA for open- and closed-loop grasping in the right hand (i.e., the PGAs became smaller on open-loop trials and larger on closed-loop trials). In addition, the PGAs for right-hand grasps were entirely determined by trial history and not by knowledge of whether or not visual feedback would be available on an upcoming trial. In contrast to grasps made with the right hand, grasps made by the left hand were affected both by trial history and by anticipatory knowledge of the upcoming visual feedback condition. But these effects were observed only on closed-loop trials, i.e., the PGAs of grasps made with the left hand on closed-loop trials were smaller when participants could anticipate the availability of feedback on an upcoming trial (alternating trials) than when they could not (randomized trials). In contrast, grasps made with the left hand on open-loop trials exhibited the same large PGAs under all feedback schedules: blocked, random, or alternating. In other words, there was no evidence for homogenization. Taken together, these results suggest that in addition to the real-time demands of the task, such as the target's size and position and the availability of visual feedback, the initial (i.e., pre-movement) programming of right-hand grasping relies on what happened on the previous trial, whereas the programming of left-hand grasping is more cognitively supervised and exploits explicit information about trial order to prepare for an upcoming trial.