Effects of Age and Stimulus Velocity in the Performance of a

Complex Coincidence-anticipation Task by Children and Adults

Teresa Figueiredo

and João Barreiros

Department of Sciences and Technologies, Polytechnic Institute of Setúbal, Estefanilha, Setúbal, Portugal

Faculty of Human Kinetics, Technical University of Lisbon, Estrada da Costa, Cruz Quebrada, Portugal

Keywords: Coincidence-anticipation, Stimulus Velocity, Children vs. Adults.

Abstract: This study investigated the effect of stimulus velocity in a complex coincidence anticipation task performed

by children and adults. Participants were required to throw a ball to hit the luminous stimulus of a Bassin

Anticipation Timer in coincidence with its motion, and they performed five 24-trial blocks with the target

speeds of 0.36 m/s, 0.71 m/s, 1.61 m/s and 3.21 m/s. Results showed more accurate and consistent

performance for adults at all target speeds, as well as a deterioration in the measures of AE and VE with

increasing stimulus speed. Furthermore, a dominant linear trend was found to explain performance changes

in adults and children at the various target speeds. The discussion focuses on the constraints of complex

coincidence anticipation tasks related to perceptual and motor demands.

1 INTRODUCTION

The coincidence-anticipation capacity is a major and

determinant competence in performing sports skills,

such as receiving, intercepting or batting a moving

object, but also in many daily actions in someone’s

life like driving a car, crossing a street, handling of

domestic appliances or the action to divert the body

from a moving object. Coincidence-anticipation

tasks require anticipatory prediction, that is, the

capacity to anticipate the trajectory of a stimulus

moving in space and time and to tuning and

synchronization motor actions. This capacity

involves a complex combination of perceptual and

motor demands, depending on the task

characteristics and particular constraints.

Simple coincidence-anticipation tasks have a

limited motor component, since the required

response is restricted to pressing a button. On the

contrary, complex tasks involve the production of a

motor action to intercept a moving target, either

using a segment of the body or an external object.

Several works on complex coincidence timing tasks

indicate that the performance error increases at the

slower speeds of the visual stimulus presentation

(e.g., Coker, 2004); (Williams, 2000); (Williams et

al., 2002); (Wrisberg et al., 1982); (Wrisberg and

Mead, 1983). In opposition, Coker (2005),

Rodrigues et al., (2011a) and Williams (1985, exp.

1) noticed more accurate responses on coincident

timing performance at the lower stimulus speed. The

main goal of the present work is the examination of

the influence of constraints, such as the different

speeds of the visual stimulus motion, in the

performance of a coincidence-anticipation task

calling for a propulsive action. Another goal of the

study is to analyze the effect of stimulus velocity on

coincident timing performance by children and

adults under the same experimental design.

2 METHODS

2.1 Participants

Twenty-four right-handers equally distributed for

both genders, 12 children (9.48 ± 0.79) and 12

undergraduate students (21.61 ± 1.46), volunteered

to participate in the study. They were unaware of the

purpose of the study and none had previous

experience on the experimental task.

2.2 Apparatus and Task

The apparatus consisted of an adaptation of the

Bassin Anticipation Timer of the Lafayette Co., and

Figueiredo T. and Barreiros J..

Effects of Age and Stimulus Velocity in the Performance of a Complex Coincidence-anticipation Task by Children and Adults.

 2013 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)

it simulates a moving target with a runway of 43

sequentially illuminated LEDs (270 cm long), which

creates the perception of a luminous stimulus in

motion (Figure 1). The device also included a

curtain of photoelectric cells throughout the light

runway, which allowed the precise detection of the

hitting point of a ball. The LEDs and the

photoelectric cells were protected by a transparent

acrylic panel (270 x 60 cm), which corresponded to

the reception area of the balls. An automaton, with

an internal chronometer, was also incorporated into

the device and has been connected to a computer.

Specifically designed computer software was used to

edit the automaton program, which allowed the

control of preprogrammed sequences of different

target speeds, as well as the duration of the intertrial

interval, the supply of visual information to the

executants on the performance results, and the

storage of data relative to motor performance

measures.

Figure 1: Apparatus used for the gathering of the data.

The task consisted of throwing a mini-tennis ball

over the shoulder to hit the luminous target in

coincidence with its motion, and the participants

were required to produce the response as soon as

they were ready to take a decision about the

displacement of the luminous target along the

runway. Every time the ball intercepted the acrylic

panel, the movement of the luminous stimulus was

interrupted at a point of its trajectory. At the end of

each practice trial, it was possible to collect two

measures for the evaluation of the response: (a) the

place where the ball intercepted the light runway; (b)

and the position of the target when the ball

intercepted the light runway. The data collected on

performance measures were subsequently

transferred to the PC and transcribed into an excel

file.

2.3 Procedures

The participants stood behind a straight line drawn

on the ground, in the centre and in front of the

apparatus, and were positioned at 270 cm of distance

from the target. The motion of the light sequence

was presented from left to right, at a height of 140

cm from the ground for both age groups. All

individuals practiced 120 trials (five 24-trial blocks)

with the target speeds of 0.36 m/s, 0.71 m/s, 1.61

m/s and 3.21 m/s, and they performed 30 trials for

one target speed before the presentation of another

one. There was a two-minute rest interval between

consecutive blocks of practice. The order of

presentation of the different target speeds was

counterbalanced for each group and it was similar

for both groups. At the moment of the ball

interception, visual information of knowledge results

(KR) related to the direction and spatial magnitude

of the response error was automatically supplied.

This information was presented for a period of 5 sec

at the end of each practice trial. A constant

foreperiod of 1500 msec was used for all trials, and

the post-KR interval and intertrial interval had the

duration of 5 sec and 10 sec, respectively.

3 RESULTS

The magnitude and the direction of the response

error were recorded for each trial. For the analysis of

the response error, absolute error (AE) and variable

error (VE) measures were calculated for each age

group. The AE and the VE measures were converted

to the symmetry (base 10 logarithms) in order to

ensure the conditions for normality and

homoscedasticity of the data. A 2 (groups) x 4

(stimulus speed) analysis of variance with repeated

measures on the last factor were respectively

performed, one for each dependent variable. Also,

the extension of the One-way ANOVA was used for

studying the dominant trend in the observed results

for the different target speeds. This has been

accomplished through polynomials orthogonal

contrasts. For the statistical analysis the assumed

significance level was α = 0.05.

For the AE and VE measures (Table 1), the

results showed a better performance for the adults in

all target speeds as it was expected [F (1, 88) =

81.95, p<.001 and F (1, 88) = 41.10, p<.001,

respectively].

Main effects for stimulus velocity were also

found [F (3, 88) = 33.26, p<.001 and F (3, 88) =

20.46, p<.001, respectively, for AE and VE], while

the interaction Groups x Stimulus Speeds failed to

reach significance [F (3, 88) = .17, p≥ .05 and F (3,

88) = .58, p≥ .05, respectively, for AE and VE].

Further examination of the main effects of stimulus

speed indicated a significant decrement for AE and

VE from the faster speed to all other target speeds,

and a decrease in AE and VE performances between

the target speeds of 1.61 m/s and 0.71 m/s was also

found (Figures 2 and 3). Moreover, the results

showed a linear trend for the decrease of the AE and

VE values as a function of the declining of the target

speeds [One-Way ANOVA’s: F (3,44) = 24.57 and F

(3,44) = 26.52, ps<.001, respectively in adults and

children for the AE; F (3,44) = 28.38 and F (3,44) =

12.41, ps<.001, respectively in adults and children

for the VE]. The linear effect has proved being the

dominant effect to explain the performance

variability at the various target speeds, both in

children and in adults.

Table 1: Mean (M) and standard deviation (SD) for the

absolute and variable errors at the different target speeds.

Mean values were converted to the symmetry using

logarithms of base 10.

Absolute Error Variable Error

Speeds M SD M SD

Adults

0.36 m/s 1.81 0.50 1.42 0.38

0.71 m/s 1.70 0.26 1.42 0.19

1.61 m/s 2.13 0.45 1.81 0.37

3.21 m/s 3.75 2.33 3.45 2.60

Total 2.35 1.45 2.02 1.54

Children

0.36 m/s 3.12 1.34 2.47 1.18

0.71 m/s 2.84 0.57 2.40 0.42

1.61 m/s 3.69 0.83 2.97 1.41

3.21 m/s 6.70 2.62 4.04 1.09

Total 4.09 2.16 2.97 1.25

0,00

0,20

0,40

0,60

0,80

1,00

3.21 m/s 1.61 m/s 0.71 m/s 0.36 m/s

Stimulus Speed

Mean AE

Adults Chlidren

Figure 2: Mean absolute error in adults and children as a

function of stimulus speed. Values converted to the

symmetry through the use of base 10 logarithms.

0,00

0,20

0,40

0,60

0,80

3.21 m/s 1.61 m/s 0.71 m/s 0.36 m/s

Stimulus Speed

Mean VE

Adults Children

Figure 3: Mean variable error in adults and children as a

function of stimulus speed. Values converted to the

symmetry through the use of base 10 logarithms.

4 DISCUSSION

The main goal of this study was to investigate the

effect of stimulus velocity in a coincidence-

anticipation throwing task performed by children

and adults. The results revealed a more accurate and

consistent performance for adults at all target

speeds, as it was expected on the basis of previous

research (e.g., Bard et al., 1990); (Dorfman, 1977);

(Fleury and Bard, 1985); (Rodrigues et al., 2011b).

More important, the results of the study showed an

increment of the AE and VE measures as the

stimulus speed increases, and a dominant linear

trend was encountered to explain performance

variability, in terms of accuracy and consistency, at

the various target speeds. This pattern of results was

observed for both children and adults, with the same

visual stimulus sequence and under the same

practice conditions. Our findings are in line with the

studies of Coker (2005), Rodrigues et al., (2011a)

and Williams (1985, exp. 1), where less accurate

responses at the faster stimulus speed were found. In

opposition, Bard et al., (1981), Coker (2004),

Williams (2000), Williams et al., (2000), Wrisberg

et al., (1992) and Wrisberg and Mead (1983)

observed lower values for the responses error at the

faster target speed. Côrrea et al., (2005) found no

differences among stimulus speeds. All the above

mentioned studies have investigated complex

coincidence-anticipation tasks, even though different

motor skills were used: (a) a segmental arm

movement (Coker, 2004; 2005); (Wrisberg et al.,

1982); (Wrisberg and Mead, 1983); (b) pushing a

certain number of buttons sequentially (Corrêa et al.,

2005); (Rodrigues et al., 2011a); (c) a propulsive

action, namely a throw at a moving target (Bard et

al., 1981), a soccer pass (Williams, 2000) and a

tennis stroke (Williams et al., 2000). One plausible

explanation for this discrepancy of results may be

tied to the nature of the task, that is, to the unique

and particular configuration of task's perceptual and

motor constraints. This idea is reinforced by the

results of the present study, where similar results

were encountered for children and adults, with

regard to the influence of the visual stimulus

velocity on coincident timing performance.

In the present study, it was noticed a significant

decrement in AE and VE performances from the

faster speed (i.e., 3.21 m/s) to all other target speeds,

as well as between the two lowest speeds (1.61 m/s

and 0.71 m/s). A possible explanation for these

findings may be related to differences in processing

time information at slower and faster stimulus

speeds. With the increase in target speed, the

stimulus duration and the time available for the

information processing become progressively

shorter. As coincident timing performance requires

fast decision operations, this could lead individuals

to automatically respond, or use stereotypic

movements by a “default” processing at the faster

stimulus speeds based on the subliminal perception

and pre-programming of movement (cf. Rodrigues et

al., 2011c; Williams, 1985). On the contrary, the

longer viewing time provided by slower stimulus

speeds could improve perceptual estimates, decision

making and planning of movement (cf. Rodrigues et

al., 2011a).

Overall, the results of this study indicated that

the stimulus speed plays a major role on coincident

timing performance. Further research is needed to

investigate the influence of stimulus velocity on the

visual processing information and control of

anticipatory tasks. This research should focus on

different developmental levels, as well as on real-

world tasks and sport skills that have rarely been

used in previous studies.

REFERENCES

Bard, C., Fleury, M., Carrière, C., and Bellec, J., 1981.

Components of the coincidence-anticipation behavior

of children aged from 6 to 11 years. Perceptual and

Motor Skills, 52(2), pp.547-56.

Bard, C., Fleury, M. and Gagnon, M., 1990. Coincidence-

anticipation timing: an age related perspective. In C.

Bard, M. Fleury and L. Hay, eds. 1990. Development

of eye-handcoordination across life span. Columbia:

University of South Caroline, pp.283-305.

Corrêa, U. C., Oliveira, P. H. V., Oliveira, J. A.,

Freudenheim, A. M., Paroli, R., Ugrinowitsch, H., Jr.

Meira, C. M., Marinovic, W., Simoni, C. G. and Tani,

G., 2005. “Timing” coincidente em tarefas complexas:

estudo exploratório do desempenho de adultos de

diferentes idades em diferentes velocidades do

estímulo visual. Revista Brasileira de Educação Física

e Esporte, 19(4), pp.307-15.

Coker, C., 2004. Bilateral symmetry in coincident timing:

a preliminary investigation. Perceptual and Motor

Skills, 98(1), pp.359-65.

Coker, C. A., 2005. Direction of an approaching stimulus

on coincident timing performance of a ballistic

striking task. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 100(4),

pp.859-60.

Dorfman, P. W., 1977. Timing and anticipation: a

developmental perspective. Journal of Motor

Behavior, 9(1), pp.67-79.

Fleury, M. and Bard, C., 1985. Age, stimulus velocity and

task complexity as determiners of coincident timing

behavior. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 11,

pp.305-17.

Rodrigues, P. C., Barbosa, R., Carita, A. I., Barreiros, J.

and Vasconcelos, O., 2011a. Stimulus velocity effect

in a complex interceptive task in right- and left-

handers. European Journal of Sport Science, 12(2),

pp.130-38.

Rodrigues, P. C., Carneiro, S. C. M., Cabral, I.,

Vasconcelos, M. O. and Barreiros, J. M., 2011b.

Efeito da complexidade da tarefa, idade e género na

assimetria motora funcional de crianças destrímanas e

sinistrómanas. Motricidade, 7(4), pp.63-71.

Rodrigues, P., Lima, E., Vasconcelos, M. O., Barreiros, J.

M. and Botelho, M., 2011c. Efeito da velocidade do

estímulo no desempenho de uma tarefa de

antecipação-coincidência em destros e canhotos.

Revista Brasileira de Educação Física e Esporte,

25(3), pp.487-96.

Williams, L. R. T., 2000. Coincidence timing of a soccer

pass: effects of stimulus velocity and movement

distance. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 91(1), pp.39-

52.

Williams, K., 1985. Age differences on a coincident

anticipation task: influence of stereotypic or

“preferred” movement speed. Journal of Motor

Behavior, 17(4), pp.389-94.

Williams, L.R.T., Katene, W.H. and Fleming, K., 2002.

Coincidence timing of a tennis stroke: effects of age,

skill, level, gender, stimulus velocity, and attention

demand. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport,

73(1), pp.28-37.

Wrisberg, C. A., Hardy, C. J. and Beitel, P. A., 1982.

Stimulus velocity and movement distance as

determiners of movement velocity and coincident

timing accuracy. Human Factors: The Journal of the

Human Factors and Ergonomics, 24(5), pp.599-08.

Wrisberg, C. A. and Mead, B. J., 1983. Developing

coincidence timing skill in children: a comparison of

training methods. Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport, 54(1), pp.67-74.