Two studies were devised to determine why the difference in manual aiming performance, between full vision and no vision, is decreased for a randomized visual feedback schedule. In study one, aiming accuracy and precision was assessed for up to four trials in the same vision condition, following a switch in visual feedback availability. In experiment one, visual feedback availability was uncertain; while in experiment two, certainty was provided. Results of both experiments revealed that the precision of the first trial immediately following the switch in visual condition was reminiscent of the trial that preceded it, even when performed under different visual conditions. For study two, the inter-trial interval was evaluated by extending the interval to five seconds. Results indicated no reminiscence effect. Overall, we suggest that when the inter-trial trial is brief, individuals rely on offline visual information from the preceding trial to plan the subsequent movement, regardless of certainty.

Two studies were devised to determine why the difference in manual aiming performance, between full vision and no vision, is decreased for a randomized visual feedback schedule. In study one, aiming accuracy and precision was assessed for up to four trials in the same vision condition, following a switch in visual feedback availability. In experiment one, visual feedback availability was uncertain; while in experiment two, certainty was provided. Results of both experiments revealed that the precision of the first trial immediately following the switch in visual condition was reminiscent of the trial that preceded it, even when performed under different visual conditions. For study two, the inter-trial interval was evaluated by extending the interval to five seconds. Results indicated no reminiscence effect. Overall, we suggest that when the inter-trial trial is brief, individuals rely on offline visual information from the preceding trial to plan the subsequent movement, regardless of certainty.