| Abstract: | D. R. Gentner (see record 1987-20878-001) rejected the notion of invariant relative timing on the basis of a comprehensive review. It is argued that this conclusion cannot be generalized in a straightforward manner to the hypothesis that central processes of motor control exhibit the characteristic of invariant relative timing. Invariant relative timing on a central level is not necessarily accompanied by invariant relative timing on a peripheral level, where the observations are made; this occurs only if the expected delays between central commands and peripheral effects (motor delays) are constant throughout the movement. A model is proposed that explicitly distinguishes between a central level of control and a peripheral level of observation. The procedures used to test the invariance of relative timing are examined, and new procedures are suggested that do not rely on the unjustified assumption of constant motor delays. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved) |
