PubMed1999
Many recent studies indicate that memory for final position is superior to memory for movement. There is ambiguity about what is meant by the term final position, however. Is it final spatial location or final posture? According to a recently proposed theory by Rosenbaum et al., which maintains that stored postures form the basis for movement planning, when people try to return to recently reached positions, they should try to adopt the postures they just occupied. An alternative view, which holds that movements are primarily planned with respect to spatial locations, predicts that subjects should tend to return to places in external space. We describe an experiment that tested these opposing predictions. The experiment relied on the notion that if people store and use postures, they should "copy" the posture adopted with one arm to the other arm when possible. The results support this hypothesis. In this article, we review previous work that bears on the question of what is learned when people move repeatedly to a given position. Then we present two theoretical perspectives which make diverging predictions about what should be learned in repositioning tasks. One perspective predicts that final positions are remembered as postures; the other predicts that final positions are remembered as locations. We describe an experiment designed to distinguish between these two predictions. The experiment indicates that final postures are remembered and are "copied" from one arm to the other when subjects try to reach repeatedly to the same location in the midsagittal plane with alternating arms or when subjects try to reach repeatedly to the same location anywhere in the workspace with the same arm. In the last section of the article, we discuss the implications of our findings.