The experiment tested 24 subjects (12 men and 12 women) on a Bassin anticipation timing task with a light stimulus velocity of 3 mph. The first aim was to compare the effects of three different types of movement responses, a simple key press with a finger, an arm movement to a key press, and a whole-body movement culminating with a kick to strike a target. The expectation that sensorimotor integra tion of the movement responses would be reflected in the accuracy and consistency of anticipation timing was supported by the results which showed that the key-press task was superior to either the arm or whole-body movement responses. This finding emphasises the role movement variables have in defining situational constraints and indicate that proficiency in coincidence anticipation appears to be influenced by the planning and organisation required for movement execution. The second aim was to examine the question of whether verbal knowledge of results was redundant. Analysis showed that verbal knowledge of results was redundant under all movement conditions. Further research is needed to identify conditions in which the visual system does not provide the motor control system with adequate information for appropriate execution of movement. An evaluation of sex differences in performance and learning comprised the third aim. That men were significantly more accurate and more consistent was in accord with previous evidence. Women might have a more conservative approach to responding than men. Effects of repeated practice, an inherent part of these studies, supported the principle that effective learning accrues from repeatedly solving the coincidence-timing problem. It was concluded that further investigation of movement variables is needed to develop understanding of how they are coupled with perceptual variables in coincidence-timing contexts.