Future movement plans interact in sequential arm movements

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Mehrdad Kashefi et al. investigated the availability of planning future reaches while simultaneously controlling the execution of the current reach. Through a series of experiments employing a novel sequential arm reaching paradigm they developed, the authors made several findings: 1) participants demonstrate the capability to plan future reaches in advance, thereby accelerating the execution of the reaching sequence, 2) planning processes for future movements are not independent one another, however, it's not a single chunk neither, 3) Interaction among these planning processes optimizes the current movement for the movement that comes after for it.

The question of this paper is very interesting, and the conclusions of this paper are well supported by data. However, certain aspects require further clarification and expansion.

1. The question of this study is whether future reach plans are available during an ongoing reach. In the abstract, the authors summarized that "participants plan at least two future reaches simultaneously with an ongoing reach and that the planning processes of the two future reaches are not independent of one another" and showed the evidence in the next sentences. However the evidence is about the relationship about ongoing reach and future plans but not about in between future plans (Line 52-55). But the last sentence (Line 55-58) mentioned about interactions between future plans only. There are some discrepancies between sentences. Could you make the abstract clear by mentioning interference between 1) ongoing movement and future plans and 2) in between future plans?
2. I understood the ongoing reach and future reaches are not independent from the results of first experiment (Figure 2). A target for the current reach is shown at Horizon 1, on the other hand, in Horizon 2, a current and a future target are shown on the screen. Inter-reach-interval was significantly reduced from H1 to H2 (Figure 2). The authors insist that "these results suggest that participants can plan two targets (I guess +1 and +2) ahead of the current reach (I guess +0)". But I think these results suggest that participants can plan a target (+1) ahead of the current reach (+0) because participants could see the current (+0) and a future target (+1) in H2. Could the authors please clarify this point?
3. Movement correction for jump of the +1 target takes longer time in H3 compared to H2 (Figure 4). Does this perturbation have any effect on reaching for +2 target? If the +1 jump doesn't affect reaching for +2 target, combined with the result that jump of the +2 target didn't affect the movement time of +1 target (Figure 3C), perturbation (target jump) only affects the movement directly perturbed. Is this implementation correct? If so, does these results support to decline future reaches are planned as motor chunk? I would like to know the author's thoughts about this.
4. Any discussion about Saccade position (Figure 7)?

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:
In this work, Kashefi et al. investigate the planning of sequential reaching movements and how the additional information about future reaches affects planning and execution. This study, carried out with human subjects, extends a body of research in sequential movements to ask important questions: How many future reaches can you plan in advance? And how do those future plans interact with each other?

The authors designed several experiments to address these questions, finding that information about future targets makes reaches more efficient in both timing and path curvature. Further, with some clever target jump manipulations, the authors show that plans for a distant future reach can influence plans for a near future reach, suggesting that the planning for multiple future reaches is not independent. Lastly, the authors show that information about future targets is acquired parafoveally--that is, subjects tend to fixate mainly on the target they are about to reach to, acquiring future target information by paying attention to targets outside the fixation point.

The study opens up exciting questions about how this kind of multi-target planning is implemented in the brain. As the authors note in the manuscript, previous work in monkeys showed that preparatory neural activity for a future reaching movement can occur simultaneously with a current reaching movement, but that study was limited to the monkey only knowing about two future targets. It would be quite interesting to see how neural activity partitions preparatory activity for a third future target, given that this study shows that the third target's planning may interact with the second target's planning.

Strengths:
A major strength of this study is that the experiments and analyses are designed to answer complementary questions, which together form a relatively complete picture of how subjects act on future target information. This complete description of a complex behavior will be a boon to future work in understanding the neural control of sequential, compound movements.

Weaknesses:
I found no real glaring weaknesses with the paper, though I do wish that there had been some more discussion of what happens to planning with longer dwell times in target. In the later parts of the manuscript, the authors mention that the co-articulation result (where reaches are curved to make future target acquisition more efficient) was less evident for longer dwell times, likely because for longer dwell times, the subject needs to fully stop in target before moving to the next one. This result made me wonder if the future plan interaction effect (tested with the target jumps) would have been affected by dwell time. As far as I can tell, the target jump portion only dealt with the shorter dwell times, but if the authors had longer dwell time data for these experiments, I would appreciate seeing the results and interpretations.

Beyond this, the authors also mentioned in the results and discussion the idea of "neural resources" being assigned to replan movements, but it's not clear to me what this might actually mean concretely. I wonder if the authors have a toy model in mind for what this kind of resource reassignment could mean. I realize it would likely be quite speculative, but I would greatly appreciate a description or some sort of intuition if possible.