Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2014 Nov 7.
Published in final edited form as: Hum Mov Sci. 2013 Nov 7;32(5):10.1016/j.humov.2013.07.019. doi: 10.1016/j.humov.2013.07.019

Figure 7.

Figure 7

(A) GEMs for two different reaching tasks (Dn/Tn = c and DnTn = c), with typical data from one subject. (B) Experimental normalized standard deviations for all subjects, for each task after Day 1 and Day 2 of practice, for tangential (δT) and perpendicular (δP) deviations from each GEM. For both tasks, subjects exhibited significantly greater variance in δT than for δP. However, this effect was more pronounced for the D/T task (p < 0:0005) than for the DT task (p = 0:019). (C) Stability multipliers (λ) for all subjects estimated for each task after Day 1 and Day 2 of practice, for δT and δP deviations from each GEM. Subjects exhibited significantly higher stability (smaller λ) for goal-relevant δP fluctuations than for goal-equivalent λT fluctuations for both tasks (p < 0:0005). However, in contrast to the variability results (B), these effects were slightly more pronounced for the DT task than for the D/T task (adapted from Smallwood et al., 2012). All error bars indicate between-subject ±95% confidence intervals.