Back

Sequence preparation is not always associated with a reaction time cost

Panjehpour, A.; Kashefi, M.; Diedrichsen, J.; Pruszynski, J. A.

2025-11-13 neuroscience
10.1101/2025.11.11.687917 bioRxiv
Show abstract

The extent to which a sequence of movements is prepared before initiating the first movement is a longstanding question in motor neuroscience. The observation that reaction time (RT) increases for longer sequences has been used as evidence of sequence preparation - reflecting the additional demands of preparing multiple movements before initiating a sequential action. However, many processes contribute to RT, making it unclear whether the observed RT increases specifically reflect sequence preparation. For example, with longer sequences, participants face greater ambiguity in selecting their first movement in the sequence. Here, we test how much of the observed RT increases can be explained by the first-target ambiguity when reaching toward spatial targets. In our paradigm, we independently manipulate: (i) the number of future targets displayed, (ii) the number of targets to be acquired, and (iii) the spatial arrangement of the targets. This approach allows us to vary the demands of sequence preparation and first-target ambiguity, thereby enabling a direct assessment of their respective influence on RT. We report that RT increases with additional sequence elements but that this effect is fully explained by the ambiguity in selecting the first reach target. That is, sequence preparation causes no RT increase. In fact, when first-target ambiguity is eliminated, RT is constant across the number of displayed targets even though kinematic analysis reveals that participants have prepared a sequence. Together, these results indicate that preparing multiple reaches to spatial targets does not impose additional temporal costs relative to preparing a single reach.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Neurophysiology
263 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.6%
2
eneuro
389 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
14.6%
3
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 5%
10.0%
4
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 18%
10.0%
5
The Journal of Neuroscience
928 papers in training set
Top 1%
10.0%
50% of probability mass above
6
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 7%
9.1%
7
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 14%
6.8%
8
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
119 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
2.7%
9
Cell Reports
1338 papers in training set
Top 21%
2.1%
10
Neuroscience
88 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.9%
11
Current Biology
596 papers in training set
Top 8%
1.9%
12
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 13%
1.8%
13
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 20%
1.2%
14
Neuropsychologia
77 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.9%
15
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B
51 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.9%
16
Cerebral Cortex Communications
36 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.8%
17
PLOS Biology
408 papers in training set
Top 20%
0.7%
18
Progress in Neurobiology
41 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
19
Frontiers in Neuroscience
223 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.7%
20
European Journal of Neuroscience
168 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
21
Experimental Brain Research
46 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.6%