Atypical biological motion kinematics are represented by complementary lower-level and top-down processes during imitation learning.

Learning a novel movement requires a new set of kinematics to be represented by the sensorimotor system. This is often accomplished through imitation learning where lower-level sensorimotor processes are suggested to represent the biological motion kinematics associated with an observed movement. Top-down factors have the potential to influence this process based on the social context, attention and salience, and the goal of the movement. In order to further examine the potential interaction between lower-level and top-down processes in imitation learning, the aim of this study was to systematically control the mediating effects during an imitation of biological motion protocol. In this protocol, we used non-human agent models that displayed different novel atypical biological motion kinematics, as well as a control model that displayed constant velocity. Importantly the three models had the same movement amplitude and movement time. Also, the motion kinematics were displayed in the presence, or absence, of end-state-targets. Kinematic analyses showed atypical biological motion kinematics were imitated, and that this performance was different from the constant velocity control condition. Although the imitation of atypical biological motion kinematics was not modulated by the end-state-targets, movement time was more accurate in the absence, compared to the presence, of an end-state-target. The fact that end-state targets modulated movement time accuracy, but not biological motion kinematics, indicates imitation learning involves top-down attentional, and lower-level sensorimotor systems, which operate as complementary processes mediated by the environmental context.

The influence of visual feedback and prior knowledge about feedback on vertical aiming strategies.

Two experiments were conducted to examine time and energy optimization strategies for movements made with and against gravity. In Experiment 1, the authors manipulated concurrent visual feedback, and knowledge about feedback. When vision was eliminated upon movement initiation, participants exhibited greater undershooting, both with their primary submovement and their final endpoint, than when vision was available. When aiming downward, participants were more likely to terminate their aiming following the primary submovement or complete a lower amplitude corrective submovement. This strategy reduced the frequency of energy-consuming corrections against gravity. In Experiment 2, the authors eliminated vision of the hand and the target at the end of the movement. This procedure was expected to have its greatest impact under no-vision conditions where no visual feedback was available for subsequent planning. As anticipated, direction and concurrent visual feedback had a profound impact on endpoint bias. Participants exhibited pronounced undershooting when aiming downward and without vision. Differences in undershooting between vision and no vision were greater under blocked feedback conditions. When performers were uncertain about the impending feedback, they planned their movements for the worst-case scenario. Thus movement planning considers the variability in execution, and avoids outcomes that require time and energy to correct.