Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Marinovic, Welber; Reid, Campbell S; Plooy, Annaliese M; Riek, Stephan; Tresilian, James R (2010)
Publisher: BioMed Central
Journal: Behavioral and Brain Functions : BBF
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: Biological Psychiatry, RC0321, Neurology. Diseases of the nervous system, RC346-429, Behavioral Neuroscience, Research



Continuous visual information is important for movement initiation in a variety of motor tasks. However, even in the absence of visual information people are able to initiate their responses by using motion extrapolation processes. Initiation of actions based on these cognitive processes, however, can demand more attentional resources than that required in situations in which visual information is uninterrupted. In the experiment reported we sought to determine whether the absence of visual information would affect the latency to inhibit an anticipatory action.


The participants performed an anticipatory timing task where they were instructed to move in synchrony with the arrival of a moving object at a determined contact point. On 50% of the trials, a stop sign appeared on the screen and it served as a signal for the participants to halt their movements. They performed the anticipatory task under two different viewing conditions: Full-View (uninterrupted) and Occluded-View (occlusion of the last 500 ms prior to the arrival at the contact point).


The results indicated that the absence of visual information prolonged the latency to suppress the anticipatory movement.


We suggest that the absence of visual information requires additional cortical processing that creates competing demand for neural resources. Reduced neural resources potentially causes increased reaction time to the inhibitory input or increased time estimation variability, which in combination would account for prolonged latency.

  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1. Lee DN: A theory of the visual control of braking based on information about time-to-collision. Perception 1976, 5:437-459.
    • 2. Lee DN: Visuo-motor coordination in space-time. Tutorials in motor behavior Amsterdam: North-HollandStelmach GE, Requin J 1980, 281-295.
    • 3. Smeets JBJ, Brenner E, Trebuchet S, Mestre DR: Is judging time-to-contact based on 'tau'? Perception 1996, 25:583-590.
    • 4. Tresilian JR: Visually timed action: time-out for 'tau'? Trends Cognit Sci 1999, 3:301-310.
    • 5. Wann JP: Anticipating arrival: is the tau margin a specious theory? J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 1996, 22:1031-1048.
    • 6. Merchant H, Georgopoulos AP: Neurophysiology of perceptual and motor aspects of interception. J Neurophysiol 2006, 95:1-13.
    • 7. Zago M, McIntyre J, Senot P, Lacquaniti F: Visuo-motor coordination and internal models for object interception. Exp Brain Res 2009, 192:571-604.
    • 8. Tyldesley DA, Whiting HTA: Operational timing. J Hum Mov Stud 1975, 1:172-177.
    • 9. Tresilian JR: Hitting a moving target: perception and action in the timing of rapid interceptions. Percept Psychophys 2005, 67:129-149.
    • 10. Bootsma RJ, Oudejans RR: Visual information about time-to-collision between two objects. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 1993, 19:1041-1052.
    • 11. Tresilian JR: Empirical and theoretical issues in the perception of time to contact. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 1991, 17:865-876.
    • 12. Tresilian JR: Approximate information-sources and perceptual variables in interceptive timing. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 1994, 20:154-173.
    • 13. DeLucia PR, Liddell GW: Cognitive motion extrapolation and cognitive clocking in prediction motion tasks. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 1998, 24:901-914.
    • 14. Jagacinski RJ, Johnson WW, Miller RA: Quantifying the cognitive trajectories of extrapolated movements. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 1983, 9:43-57.
    • 15. Cerminara NL, Apps R, Marple-Horvat DE: An internal model of a moving visual target in the lateral cerebellum. J Physiol London 2009, 587:429-442.
    • 16. O'Reilly JX, Mesulam MM, Nobre AC: The cerebellum predicts the timing of perceptual events. J Neurosci 2008, 28:2252-2260.
    • 17. Brown SW: Attentional resources in timing: Interference effects in concurrent temporal and nontemporal working memory tasks. Percept Psychophys 1997, 59:1118-1140.
    • 18. Brown SW: The attenuation effect in timing: Counteracting dual-task interference with time-judgment skill training. Perception 2008, 37:712-724.
    • 19. Champagne J, Fortin C: Attention sharing during timing: Modulation by processing demands of an expected stimulus. Percept Psychophys 2008, 70:630-639.
    • 20. Macar F, Vidal F: Timing processes: an outline of behavioural and neural indices not systematically considered in timing models. Can J Exp Psychol 2009, 63:227-239.
    • 21. Buhusi CV, Meck WH: Relative time sharing: new findings and an extension of the resource allocation model of temporal processing. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2009, 364:1875-1885.
    • 22. Carlsen AN, Chua R, Inglis JT, Sanderson DJ, Franks IM: Motor preparation in an anticipation-timing task. Exp Brain Res 2008, 190:453-461.
    • 23. Marinovic W, Plooy AM, Tresilian JR: Preparation and inhibition of interceptive actions. Exp Brain Res 2009, 197:311-319.
    • 24. McGarry T, Chua R, Franks IM: Stopping and restarting an unfolding action at various times. Q J Exp Psychol A 2003, 56:601-620.
    • 25. Slater-Hammel AT: Reliability, accuracy, and refractoriness of a transit reaction. Res Q 1960, 31:217-228.
    • 26. Hogg RV, Craig AT: Introduction into mathematical statistics Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 5 1995.
    • 27. Peterken C, Brown B, Bowman K: Predicting the future position of a moving target. Perception 1991, 20:5-16.
    • 28. Rosenbaum DA: Perception and extrapolation of velocity and acceleration. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 1975, 1:395-403.
    • 29. Lewis PA, Miall RC: Distinct systems for automatic and cognitively controlled time measurement: evidence from neuroimaging. Curr Opin Neurobiol 2003, 13:250-255.
    • 30. Tresilian JR: Perceptual and cognitive processes in time-to-contact estimation: analysis of prediction-motion and relative judgment tasks. Percept Psychophys 1995, 57:231-245.
    • 31. Milner AD, Goodale MA: The visual brain in action Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2 2006.
    • 32. Milner AD, Goodale MA: Two visual systems re-viewed. Neuropsychologia 2008, 46:774-785.
    • 33. Pisella L, Grea H, Tilikete C, Vighetto A, Desmurget M, Rode G, Boisson D, Rossetti Y: An 'automatic pilot' for the hand in human posterior parietal cortex: toward reinterpreting optic ataxia. Nat Neurosci 2000, 3:729-736.
    • 34. Ghajar J, Ivry RB: The predictive brain state: Timing deficiency in traumatic brain injury? Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2008, 22:217-227.
    • 35. Ghajar J, Ivry RB: The Predictive Brain State: Asynchrony in Disorders of Attention? Neuroscientist 2009, 15:232-242.
    • 36. Golla H, Thier P, Haarmeier T: Disturbed overt but normal covert shifts of attention in adult cerebellar patients. Brain 2005, 128:1525-1535.
    • 37. Schweizer TA, Alexander MP, Cusimano M, Stuss DT: Fast and efficient visuotemporal attention requires the cerebellum. Neuropsychologia 2007, 45:3068-3074.
    • 38. Marinovic W, Plooy AM, Tresilian JR: The utilisation of visual information in the control of rapid interceptive actions. Exp Psychol 2009, 56:265-273.
    • 39. Tresilian JR, Plooy AM: Effects of acoustic startle stimuli on interceptive action. Neuroscience 2006, 142:579-594.
    • 40. Field DT, Wann JP: Perceiving time to collision activates the sensorimotor cortex. Curr Biol 2005, 15:453-458.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.