Event Abstract

Back to Event

The spatial-tapping task to reveal the coexistence of event-based and emergent timing for the control of rhythmic sequences.

Mariama C. Dione1*, Laurent Ott1 and Yvonne N. Delevoye-Turrell1
  • 1 URECA, UPRES EA1059, Université Lille3, France

The control of rhythmic motor sequences may involve two distinct timing processes, i.e. event-based and emergent timing. Event-based timing refers to the mode of action control in which the task goal is to maintain timing accuracy (Wing & Kristofferson, 1973a, 1973b), while in emergent processes, the timing emerges from the dynamics of control of the spatial trajectory (Robertson et al., 1999; Turvey, 1977). These timing modes have been revealed through finger tapping and circle drawing tasks, respectively (Zelaznik, Spencer, & Doffin, 2000; Zelaznik, Spencer, & Ivry, 2002). In the present study, we used a hybrid-pointing task in order to assess whether the two modes could co-exist within a unique movement, as suggested by Repp & Steinman (2010).

Sixty-eight participants performed a spatial-tapping task in which they were instructed to produce discrete tapping actions around a circular trajectory, across nine distinct tempi (1100 to 300 ms of inter-onset-interval). Autocorrelation functions (AC) of the inter-response-intervals were calculated up to ten lags to reveal series dependencies. Significant negative AC-1 were revealed at tempi ≥ 700 ms, suggesting that the timing was event-based at these tempi, and significant positive AC-6 were revealed at tempi ≤ 500 ms, suggesting that the timing was emergent at these slow tempi. Furthermore, an analysis of the spatial errors indicated that the timing errors were the smallest between 1100 to 900 ms of IOI, intermediate between 800 to 600 ms of IOI, and the largest between 500 to 300 ms of IOI, pattern that follows the index of difficulty of the task. Finally, between 600 to 300 ms of IOI the endpoint distributions were significantly more oriented in function of the tangent to the circle, with the emergence of an anchor point in the spatial trajectory, suggesting that the task goal at faster tempi was to smooth the tapping actions within a global circular pattern rather than maintaining timing accuracy per se (see Roerdink, Ophoff, Peper, & Beek, 2008 for descriptions of the anchoring phenomenon).

Overall, our results suggest that for sequential motor control, two different timing modes can be used in function of task constraints. Autocorrelation analyses suggest that event coding is used at slower tempi (≥ 900 ms), and that an emergent timing mode is used at faster tempi (≤ 500 ms). For intermediate tempi, the temporal pressure was higher and the control was maintained event-based between 800 to 700 ms of IOI, with however a significant decrease in subjects’ performances. A combination of modes was revealed around 600 ms of IOI. Hence, we conclude that our results argue in favour of the coexistence of the two timing within the same motor sequence as a balance, with one mode taking over when timing is the priority (event-coding at slow tempi) and the other being dominant when the spatial aspect of the task is set as the priority (emergent-coding at fast tempi).

References

Repp, B., & Steinman, S. (2010). Simultaneous event-based and emergent timing: synchronization, continuation, and phase correction. Journal of Motor Behavior, 42(2), 111–126.
Robertson, S., Zelaznik, H., Lantero, D., Bojczyk, K., Spencer, R., Doffin, J., & Schneidt, T. (1999). Correlations for timing consistency among tapping and drawing tasks: evidence against a single timing process for motor control. Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance, 25(5), 1316–1330.
Roerdink, M., Ophoff, E., Peper, C., & Beek, P. (2008). Visual and musculoskeletal underpinnings of anchoring in rhythmic visuo-motor tracking. Experimental Brain Research., 184(2), 143–156.
Turvey, M. (1977). Preliminaries to a theory of action with reference to vision. Perceiving, acting and knowing, 211–265.
Wing, A., & Kristofferson, A. (1973a). Response delays and the timing of discrete motor responses. Perception & Psychophysics, 14(1), 5–12.
Wing, A., & Kristofferson, A. (1973b). The timing of interresponse intervals. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 13(3), 455–460.
Zelaznik, H., Spencer, R., & Doffin, J. (2000). Temporal precision in tapping and circle drawing movements at preferred rates is not correlated: further evidence against timing as a general-purpose ability. Journal of motor behavior, 32(2), 193–199.
Zelaznik, H., Spencer, R., & Ivry, R. (2002). Dissociation of explicit and implicit timing in repetitive tapping and drawing movements. Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance, 28(3), 575–588.

Keywords: motor control, timing, planning, time series analysis, Tapping, visuo-motor control, trajectory, synchronization

Conference: 14th Rhythm Production and Perception Workshop Birmingham 11th - 13th September 2013, Birmingham, United Kingdom, 11 Sep - 13 Sep, 2013.

Presentation Type: Oral Presentation

Topic: Rhythm Production and Perception

Citation: Dione MC, Ott L and Delevoye-Turrell YN (2013). The spatial-tapping task to reveal the coexistence of event-based and emergent timing for the control of rhythmic sequences.. Conference Abstract: 14th Rhythm Production and Perception Workshop Birmingham 11th - 13th September 2013. doi: 10.3389/conf.fnhum.2013.214.00031

Copyright: The abstracts in this collection have not been subject to any Frontiers peer review or checks, and are not endorsed by Frontiers. They are made available through the Frontiers publishing platform as a service to conference organizers and presenters.

The copyright in the individual abstracts is owned by the author of each abstract or his/her employer unless otherwise stated.

Each abstract, as well as the collection of abstracts, are published under a Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0 (attribution) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) and may thus be reproduced, translated, adapted and be the subject of derivative works provided the authors and Frontiers are attributed.

For Frontiers’ terms and conditions please see https://www.frontiersin.org/legal/terms-and-conditions.

Received: 14 Jul 2013; Published Online: 24 Sep 2013.

* Correspondence: Miss. Mariama C Dione, URECA, UPRES EA1059, Université Lille3, Lille, France, mariama.dione@univ-amu.fr