The classic theorem of Fitts (1954) asserts that the combined effects of movement amplitude and target width (index of difficulty: ID) define movement times (MTs) for goal-directed reaches. Moreover, Fitts' theorem states that reaches yielding the same ID produce equivalent MTs regardless of the response's amplitude and width combination. However, most work providing direct support for Fitts' theorem has employed short movement amplitudes and small target widths. Thus, no direct evidence supports the unitary nature of MT/ID relations across a range of amplitudes and widths used in contemporary studies of goal-directed reaching. To that end, we contrasted MT/ID relations for discrete reaches equated for movement ID but differing with respect to their amplitude (15.5, 19, 25.5, and 38 cm) and width (2, 3, 4, and 5 cm) requirements. Results show that amplitude and width manipulations yielded robust linear MT/ID relations; however, the slope of the MT/ID function was markedly steeper in the former (amplitude = 92 ms; width = 13 ms). Such findings indicate that the constituent elements of movement ID are dissociable and that the fixed parameter nature of Fitts' theorem cannot be applied to a continuous range of veridical movement amplitudes and target widths. Keywords: action, Fitts, index of difficulty, reaching, visually guided The seminal work of Paul Fitts described the information processing demands associated with reciprocal (Fitts, 1954) and discrete (Fitts & Peterson, 1964) goal-directed reaching movements. According to Fitts, the demands of a reaching response are determined by the task's index of difficulty (ID: in bits of information) that is reflected by the equation log2(2A/W): where A represents movement amplitude and W the width associated with the goaldefined target object. Notably, Fitts observed that increasing ID gave rise to a linear increase in movement time (MT) and further noted that MTs for any two movements were equivalent given a constant ratio between 2A/W. The importance of Fitts'1 research is undoubtedly recognised by the myriad of studies that have cited his work. Moreover, the fact that Fitts' equation generalizes across a range of tasks (for a comprehensive list see Plamondon & Alimi, 1997) has lead many movement scientists to adopt his findings as a law-based index of human performance (so-called Fitts Law). It is important to recognise that much of the subsequent work applying Fitts' equation has not examined MTAD relations across fully factorial combinations of amplitude and width. Moreover, contemporary research has largely limited the exploration of MT/ID relations to singular manipulations of amplitude or width; that is, a change in ID is accomplished by manipulating amplitude while maintaining a constant width (or vice versa). To demonstrate the first point, we outline a frequently cited study by Langolf, Chaffin, and Foulke (1976).2 In their study, small amplitude (As = 0.25 and 1.27 cm) movements requiring the reciprocal transfer of a peg (Ws = 0.0076 and 0.107 cm) were completed under visualfield magnification (e.g., IDs ranging from 2.22 to 8.38 bits). Additionally, the same group of participants completed a standard tapping task involving similar movement amplitudes (As = 5.08, 10.2, 20.3, and 30.5 cm) and target widths (Ws = 0.64, 1.27, 2.54, and 5.08 cm) employed by Fitts (1954), for example, IDs ranging from 2.00 to 6.58 bits.3 What is frequently recorded from this work is that MT/ID relations for both magnified and nonmagnified tasks elicited robust linear fits (R2 values: 0.98-1.00): a finding providing an archetypal demonstration of the generalizability of Fitts' equation. It is, however, important to recognise that inspection of Langolf et al. 's Figure 6 indicates that neither the magnified nor nonmagnified tasks included factorial arrangements of amplitude and width. For example, Figure 6 shows that only 11 of the 16 possible arrangements of amplitude and width were evaluated in the standard (i. …