Cognitive costs of motor planning do not differ between pointing and grasping in a sequential task

Hysteresis reveals a happiness bias effect in dynamic emotion recognition from ambiguous biological motion

Considering the nonlinear dynamic nature of emotion recognition, it is believed to be strongly dependent on temporal context. This can be investigated by resorting to the phenomenon of hysteresis, which features a form of serial dependence, entailed by continuous temporal stimulus trajectories. Under positive hysteresis, the percept remains stable in visual memory (persistence) while in negative hysteresis, it shifts earlier (adaptation) to the opposite interpretation. Here, we asked whether positive or negative hysteresis occurs in emotion recognition of inherently ambiguous biological motion, while testing for the controversial debate of a negative versus positive emotional bias. Participants (n = 22) performed a psychophysical experiment in which they were asked to judge stimulus transitions between two emotions, happiness and sadness, from an actor database, and report perceived emotion across time, from one emotion to the opposite as physical cues were continuously changing. Our results reveal perceptual hysteresis in ambiguous emotion recognition, with positive hysteresis (visual persistence) predominating. However, negative hysteresis (adaptation/fatigue) was also observed in particular in the direction from sadness to happiness. This demonstrates a positive (happiness) bias in emotion recognition in ambiguous biological motion recognition. Finally, the interplay between positive and negative hysteresis suggests an underlying competition between visual persistence and adaptation mechanisms during ambiguous emotion recognition.

Hysteresis in motor and language production

Hysteresis in motor planning and syntactic priming in language planning refer to the influence of prior production history on current production behaviour. Computational efficiency accounts of action hysteresis and theoretical accounts of syntactic priming both argue that reusing an existing plan is less costly than generating a novel plan. Despite these similarities across motor and language frameworks, research on planning in these domains has largely been conducted independently. The current study adapted an existing language paradigm to mirror the incremental nature of a manual motor task to investigate the presence of parallel hysteresis effects across domains. We observed asymmetries in production choice for both the motor and language tasks that resulted from the influence of prior history. Furthermore, these hysteresis effects were more exaggerated for subordinate production forms implicating an inverse preference effect that spanned domain. Consistent with computational efficiency accounts, across both task participants exhibited reaction time savings on trials in which they reused a recent production choice. Together, these findings lend support to the broader notion that there are common production biases that span both motor and language domains.

Less motor (re-)planning requires fewer working memory resources

In the current study, we asked if less motor re-planning requires fewer resources in working memory (WM). To this end, participants executed a spatial WM task in parallel to different sequential motor tasks: (1) a randomised task with a high amount of motor re-planning and (2) an ordered task with a lower amount of motor re-planning. Recall performance in the spatial WM task was measured as the dependent variable. Hand posture was used to calculate the percentage of motor re-planning and, thus, to validate the experimental manipulation. The percentage of motor re-planning was lower in the ordered task, while spatial WM performance was higher. This indicates that WM resources depleted by the motor task scale with the amount of motor re-planning. Results further showed a significant recency effect (i.e. better recall of late items) in the spatial WM task. As previous studies found that recency effects in a verbal WM task are disrupted by a concurrent motor task, the presence of recency in the current study indicates a differential interference of a concurrent motor task on verbal vs. spatial recall, which has important implications for several current models of WM.

Working memory load does not affect sequential motor planning

Movement planning disrupts the recall performance in a short term memory task, indicating that both processes share common working memory (WM) resources. In the current study, we tested whether this interference was bidirectional. To this end, we combined an easy or a difficult memory task (depleting different amounts of WM resources) with a sequential motor task (opening a column of drawers). The size of the hysteresis effect in the sequential motor task was measured as a proxy for the fraction of motor plan reuse. The different WM loads created by the memory task had no effect on the fractions of motor plan reuse and motor (re-)planning, which supports the idea that motor planning has priority access to WM. A recency effect (better recall of late items) was absent in a verbal memory task but present in a spatial one. Recency is commonly attributed to the episodic buffer, a non-domain-specific storage of the central executive. The domain-specific interference of the motor task with recency indicates that the second assumption needs to be reevaluated.

Shifts of the point-of-change can be attributed to a lower mechanical cost of motor execution

In a previous study on hand selection in a sequential reaching task, the authors showed a shift of the point-of-change (POC) to the left of the midline. This implies that participants conducted a number of contralateral reaches with their dominant, right hand. Contralateral movements have longer planning and execution times and a lower precision. In the current study, we asked whether lower mechanical costs of motor execution or lower cognitive costs of motor planning compensated for these disadvantages. Theories on hemispheric differences postulate lower mechanical costs in the dominant hemisphere and lower cognitive costs in the left hemisphere (independent of handedness). In right-handed participants, both factors act agonistically to reduce the total cost of right-handed reaches. To distinguish between the cost factors, we had left- and right-hand-dominant participants execute a sequential, unimanual reaching task. Results showed a left-shift of the POC in the right-handed and a right-shift in the left-handed group. Both shifts were similar in magnitude. These findings indicate that only the mechanical cost of motor execution compensates for the disadvantages of the contralateral reaches, while the cognitive cost of motor planning is irrelevant for the POC shift.

Hemispheric lateralization does not affect the cognitive and mechanical cost of a sequential motor task

In sequential, repetitive tasks, we often partially reuse former motor plans. This causes a persistence of an earlier adopted posture (termed motor hysteresis). The cost-optimization hypothesis states that a partial reuse reduces the cognitive cost of a movement, while the persistence in a former posture increases its mechanical cost. An optimal fraction of reuse, which depends on the relative cognitive and mechanical cost, minimizes the total movement cost. Several studies postulate differences in mechanical or cognitive cost as a result of hemispheric lateralization. In the current study, we asked whether these differences would result in different fractions of motor plan reuse. To this end, left- and right-handed dominant participants executed a sequential motor task (opening a column of drawers) with their dominant and non-dominant hand. The size of the motor hysteresis effect was measured as a proxy for the fraction of plan reuse. Participants used similar postures and exhibited a similar hysteresis effect, irrespective of hand and handedness. This finding indicates that either the cognitive and mechanical costs of a motor task are unaffected by hemispheric differences or that their effect on motor planning is negligible.

A Simple Model to Estimate the Percentage of Motor Plan Reuse From Hysteresis Effect Size

In sequential tasks, a partial reuse of former motor plans results in a persistence in the former posture (termed hysteresis). The cost-optimization hypothesis states that the percentage of reuse depends on the relative cognitive and mechanical cost of each movement. These costs should be constant across all drawers, yet previous studies found a larger hysteresis effect at the central drawers and declining effects toward the periphery. In the current study, we show that a simple mathematical model that assumes a sigmoid optimal grasp angle function and a fixed percentage of motor plan reuse explains the posture variance in a randomized and an ordered sequential drawer opening task. This finding indicates that (1) the optimal pro/supination angle is a sigmoid function of drawer height, (2) the percentage of motor plan reuse is constant across drawers, and (3) a constant percentage of reuse results in a larger hysteresis effect at the central drawers. Based on the model, the percentage of motor plan reuse in future studies can be estimated from the size of the motor hysteresis effect.

Motor hysteresis in a sequential grasping and pointing task is absent in task-critical joints

In a prior study (Schütz et al. in Exp Brain Res 2016. doi: 10.1007/s00221-016-4608-6 ), we demonstrated that the cognitive cost of motor planning did not differ in a vertical pointing and grasping task. It was unclear whether the similar cost implied that both tasks required the same number of independent degrees of freedom (IDOFs) or that the number of IDOFs did not affect motor planning. To differentiate between both cases, a reanalysis of the prior data was conducted. The number of IDOFs in the pointing and grasping tasks was computed by factor analysis. In both tasks, two IDOFs were used, which was the minimum number required for position control. This indicates that hand alignment in the grasping task did not require an additional IDOF. No conclusions regarding the link between the cognitive cost of motor planning and the number of IDOFs could be drawn. A subset of task-critical joint angles was not affected by motor hysteresis. This indicates that a joint's susceptibility to motor hysteresis depends on its relevance to the task goal. In task-critical joints, planning cost minimization by motor plan reuse is suppressed in favor of the task goal.