18
Views
25
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Research Articles

Age Differences on a Coincident Anticipation Task

Influence of Stereotypic or “Preferred” Movement Speed

Pages 389-410 | Received 27 Nov 1982, Published online: 13 Aug 2013
 

Abstract

Two experiments were performed as an initial attempt to explain age related limitations in response accuracy on a coincident anticipation task. Five- to 9-year-old boys and adult males participated in each experiment. They made horizontal arm movements in response to stimuli from a Bassin Anticipation Timer. The results of Experiment I confirmed the findings of previous studies, which showed that young children respond early to slow moving stimuli. They were most accurate at intermediate speeds; their responses deteriorated as speed was increased. Older children and adults were more accurate at slow to intermediate speeds; their performances also declined at fast stimulus velocities. Experiment II examined use of a stereotypic or default movement speed as an explanation for these results, particularly for young children. A most comfortable movement pace was determined for each subject and was used as a baseline speed for a subsequent timing task. Four other stimuli were selected in 0.8 mph increments from the baseline speed (two faster, two slower). In addition, selected trials for 6 subjects at each age were filmed at 32 fps. X-coordinates for these trials were obtained and smoothed at 5 Hz. Movement time data suggested that 5-year-olds used a preferred or stereotypic speed, since they were accurate only when responding to their baseline speed. Older subjects matched stimuli up to and including their baselines. Kinematic characteristics confirmed the general notion of preferred speed for 5-year-olds. These same measures demonstrated that older subjects were increasingly adaptable in their responses, despite a failure to respond more accurately. Consequently, the term “preferred speed” lacks generality as an explanatory concept. Age-related shifts in the ability to modify components of a response, like average movement velocity and number of corrections, were used to explain accuracy differences.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Kathleen Williams

The author is an assistant professor in the Department of Physical Education, Dance, and Leisure Studies, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506. Part of this study was submitted in partial fulfillment of the Ph.D. requirement at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, under the supervision of Dr. L. E. Halverson. Partial funding for the project was provided by Sigma Xi, the Scientific Research Society. The author extends a special thanks to M. A. Roberton, Ann F. VanSant, and George Milliken for their assistance with various parts of this study.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.