Abstract
In rapid manual aiming, traditional wisdom would have it that two components manifest from feedback-based processes, where error accumulated within the primary submovement can be corrected within the secondary submovement courtesy of online sensory feedback. In some aiming contexts, there are more type 1 submovements (overshooting) compared to types 2 and 3 submovements (undershooting), particularly for more rapid movements. These particular submovements have also been attributed to a mechanical artefact involving movement termination and stabilisation. Hence, the goal of our study was to more closely examine the function of type 1 submovements by revisiting some of our previous datasets. We categorised these submovements according to whether the secondary submovement moved the limb closer (functional), or not (non-functional), to the target. Overall, there were both functional and non-functional submovements with a significantly higher proportion for the former. The displacement at the primary and secondary submovements, and negative velocity peak were significantly greater in the functional compared to non-functional. The influence of submovement type on other movement characteristics, including movement time, was somewhat less clear. These findings indicate that the majority of type 1 submovements are related to intended feedforward- and/or feedback-based processes, although there are a portion that can be attributed an indirect manifestation of a mechanical artefact. As a result, we suggest that submovements should be further categorised by their error-reducing function.