[From
Bjorn Simonsen (2004.10.22,11:35 EST)]
From John
Anderson (2004.10.21 01:35)
From Rick
Marken (2004.10.21.2030)
was: FW: Phys.
Rev. Focus–20 OCT 2004
I read the
complete Focus story. I have not read the PRL article
Status: “The
Brain seems to add an additional lead time in some cases, beyond what is needed
to compensate for nerve transmission times”. …… And “I think that’s quite
plausible,” says J. A. Scott Kelso, a psychologist at Florida Atlantic
University in Boca Raton. “Here it’s very clear that the brain is
anticipating an upcoming event.”
How does PCT/HPCT explain this?
Tracking is a Fourth-order Behavior (HPCT). If we
control at the fourth order level we are able to execute a controlled movement.
In this experiment the researchers asked people to use
a computer mouse to track a moving target.
Being an observer (researcher) we would observe an
object controlling a Sixth-level Behavior, the Relationship level. Is the
Subject’s knot on the dot?
Do I understand PCT/HPCT correct when I say that the
experimenter controls the knot on dot at a Reference level when the Subjects
controlled at the Transition level. To control at a Reference level will take
longer time than control at a Transition level. The “frequency change” happens
later for the experimenter than for the Subject who is tracking.
Is it also correct to say, as Sawada says, that the
visual-motor system is proactive? It is proactive for the experimenter.
bjorn