Search

BackgroundThere is evidence that sensorimotor and executive functions are inherently intertwined, but that the relationship between these functions differ depending on an individual’s stage in development (e.g., childhood, adolescence, adulthood).ObjectiveIn this study, sensorimotor and executive function performance was examined in a group of children (n = 40; 8–12 years), adolescents (n = 39; 13–17 years), and young adults (n = 83; 18–24 years) to investigate maturation of these functions, and how the relationships between these functions differ between groups.ResultsAdults and adolescents outperformed children on all sensorimotor and executive functions. Adults and adolescents exhibited similar levels of executive functioning, but adults outperformed adolescents on two sensorimotor functioning measures (eye-hand coordination spatial precision and proprioceptive variability). Regression analysis demonstrated that executive functions contribute to children’s sensorimotor performance, but do not contribute to adolescent’s sensorimotor performance.ConclusionThese findings highlight the key role that developmental stage plays in the relationship between sensorimotor and executive functions. Specifically, executive functions appear to contribute to more successful sensorimotor function performance in childhood, but not during adolescence. It is likely that sensorimotor functions begin to develop independently from executive functions during adolescence, and therefore do not contribute to successful sensorimotor performance. The change in the relationship between sensorimotor and executive functions is important to take into consideration when developing sensorimotor and executive function interventions.

Background: There is evidence that sensorimotor and executive functions are inherently intertwined, but that the relationship between these functions differ depending on an individual's stage in development (e.g., childhood, adolescence, adulthood). Objective: In this study, sensorimotor and executive function performance was examined in a group of children (n = 40; 8–12 years), adolescents (n = 39; 13–17 years), and young adults (n = 83; 18–24 years) to investigate maturation of these functions, and how the relationships between these functions differ between groups. Results: Adults and adolescents outperformed children on all sensorimotor and executive functions. Adults and adolescents exhibited similar levels of executive functioning, but adults outperformed adolescents on two sensorimotor functioning measures (eye-hand coordination spatial precision and proprioceptive variability). Regression analysis demonstrated that executive functions contribute to children's sensorimotor performance, but do not contribute to adolescent's sensorimotor performance. Conclusion: These findings highlight the key role that developmental stage plays in the relationship between sensorimotor and executive functions. Specifically, executive functions appear to contribute to more successful sensorimotor function performance in childhood, but not during adolescence. It is likely that sensorimotor functions begin to develop independently from executive functions during adolescence, and therefore do not contribute to successful sensorimotor performance. The change in the relationship between sensorimotor and executive functions is important to take into consideration when developing sensorimotor and executive function interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years, pyrethroids have emerged as a less toxic alternative to eliminate insect pests. However, some animal studies and studies with children show that these pesticides are toxic and lead to neurobehavioral effects similar to other pesticides, such as organophosphates. The purpose of this review was to systematize the epidemiological scientific evidence about the neurobehavioral, neuromotor, and neurocognitive effects in agricultural workers and their children exposed to pyrethroid pesticides. We conducted two searches (with different terms) in PubMed and Scopus databases, including articles in Spanish and English language on the effects of occupational exposure to pyrethroid pesticides associated with neurobehavioral, neuromotor, and neurocognitive functioning of agricultural workers and their children. There were no filters by year, and the search included studies till march 2021. To develop the search, we followed the recommendations contained in the PRISMA guidelines and the PICO strategy. The results show that in 66.6% of the studies reviewed (8 of 12 studies), agricultural workers or their children occupationally exposed to pyrethroid pesticides have a higher risk of presenting difficulties in their neurocognitive, neuromotor, or neurobehavioral performance, mainly associated with attention, processing speed (linked to hand-eye coordination), and motor coordination. There are still few studies that address this issue. However, the quality of most of the research conducted (83% intermediate or high quality) confirms the risk for neurobehavioral health in agricultural workers due to occupational exposure to pyrethroids. More research is required evaluating the exposure to pyrethroids, including biomarkers and validated neurobehavioral and neuromotor tests, in addition to evaluating the effect of simultaneous exposure to other hazardous pesticides. Assuming that the use of pyrethroids is increasing considerably and faster than the scientific evidence, it is suggested as a precautionary principle to regulate, more strictly, the sale of pyrethroids and other pesticides. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mirror visual feedback (MVF) is a promising technique in clinical settings that can be used to augment performance of an untrained limb. Several studies with healthy volunteers and patients using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) or functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) indicate that functional alterations within primary motor cortex (M1) might be one candidate mechanism that could explain MVF-induced changes in behavior. Until now, most studies have used MVF to improve performance of the non-dominant hand (NDH). The question remains if the behavioral effect of MVF differs according to hand dominance. Here, we conducted a study with two groups of young, healthy right-handed volunteers who performed a complex ball-rotation task while receiving MVF of the dominant (n = 16, group 1, MVFDH) or NDH (n = 16, group 2, MVFNDH). We found no significant differences in baseline performance of the untrained hand between groups before MVF was applied. Furthermore, there was no significant difference in the amount of performance improvement between MVFDH and MVFNDH indicating that the outcome of MVF seems not to be influenced by hand dominance. Thus our findings might have important implications in neurorehabilitation suggesting that patients suffering from unilateral motor impairments might benefit from MVF regardless of the dominance of the affected limb. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this study was to examine the role of binocular vision during a prehension task performed in a visually enriched environment where the target object was surrounded by distractors/obstacles. Fifteen adults reached and grasped for a cylindrical peg while eye movements and upper limb kinematics were recorded. The complexity of the visual environment was manipulated by varying the number of distractors and the saliency of the target. Gaze behavior (i.e., the latency of the primary gaze shift and frequency of gaze shifts prior to reach initiation) was comparable between viewing conditions. In contrast, a binocular advantage was evident in performance accuracy. Specifically, participants picked up the wrong object twice as often during monocular viewing when the complexity of the environment increased. Reach performance was more efficient during binocular viewing, which was demonstrated by shorter reach reaction time and overall movement time. Reaching movements during the approach phase had higher peak velocity during binocular viewing. During monocular viewing reach trajectories exhibited a direction bias during the acceleration phase, which was leftward during left eye viewing and rightward during right eye viewing. This bias can be explained by the presence of esophoria in the covered eye. The grasping interval was also extended by ~20% during monocular viewing. In conclusion, binocular vision provides important input for planning and execution of prehension movements in visually enriched environments. Binocular advantage was evident, regardless of set size or target saliency, indicating that adults plan their movements more cautiously during monocular viewing, even in relatively simple environments with a highly salient target. Nevertheless, in visually-normal adults monocular input provides sufficient information to engage in online control to correct the initial errors in movement planning.

The processes underlying short-term plasticity induced by visuomotor adaptation to a shifted visual field are still debated. Two main sources of error can induce motor adaptation: reaching feedback errors, which correspond to visually perceived discrepancies between hand and target positions, and errors between predicted and actual visual reafferences of the moving hand. These two sources of error are closely intertwined and difficult to disentangle, as both the target and the reaching limb are simultaneously visible. Accordingly, the goal of the present study was to clarify the relative contributions of these two types of errors during a pointing task under prism-displaced vision. In ‘terminal feedback error’ condition, viewing of their hand by subjects was allowed only at movement end, simultaneously with viewing of the target. In ‘movement prediction error’ condition, viewing of the hand was limited to movement duration, in the absence of any visual target, and error signals arose solely from comparisons between predicted and actual reafferences of the hand. In order to prevent intentional corrections of errors, a subthreshold, progressive stepwise increase in prism deviation was used, so that subjects remained unaware of the visual deviation applied in both conditions. An adaptive aftereffect was observed in the ‘terminal feedback error’ condition only. As far as subjects remained unaware of the optical deviation and self-assigned pointing errors, prediction error alone was insufficient to induce adaptation. These results indicate a critical role of hand-to-target feedback error signals in visuomotor adaptation; consistent with recent neurophysiological findings, they suggest that a combination of feedback and prediction error signals is necessary for eliciting aftereffects. They also suggest that feedback error updates the prediction of reafferences when a visual perturbation is introduced gradually and cognitive factors are eliminated or strongly attenuated.

In the stop-signal paradigm, participants perform a primary reaction task, for example a visual or auditory discrimination task, and have to react to a go stimulus as quickly as possible with a specified motor response. In a certain percentage of trials, after presentation of the stimulus (go signal), another stimulus (stop signal) is presented with a variable stop-signal delay. Whenever a stop signal occurs, the participant is asked to inhibit the execution of the response. Here, an extended test of the popular horse race model for this task (Logan and Cowan 1984) is presented. Responses for eye and hand movements in both single-task and dual-task conditions were collected. Saccadic reaction times revealed some significant violations of the model's basic assumption of independent go and inhibition processes for all six participants. Saccades that escaped an early stop signal were systematically slower and had smaller amplitudes compared to saccades without a stop signal. Moreover, the analysis of concomitant electromyographic responses recorded from the upper arm suggests the existence of two separate inhibitory mechanisms: a slow, selective, central inhibitory mechanism and a faster, highly efficient, peripheral one, which is probably ineffective for saccades.

Although eye movement onset typically precedes hand movement onset when reaching to targets presented in peripheral vision, arm motor commands appear to be issued at around the same time, and possibly in advance, of eye motor commands. A fundamental question, therefore, is whether eye movement initiation is linked or yoked to hand movement. We addressed this issue by having participants reach to targets after adapting to a visuomotor reversal (or 180° rotation) between the position of the unseen hand and the position of a cursor controlled by the hand. We asked whether this reversal, which we expected to increase hand reaction time (HRT), would also increase saccadic reaction time (SRT). As predicted, when moving the cursor to targets under the reversal, HRT increased in all participants. SRT also increased in all but one participant, even though the task for the eyes – shifting gaze to the target – was unaltered by the reversal of hand position feedback. Moreover, the effects of the reversal on SRT and HRT were positively correlated across participants; those who exhibited the greatest increases in HRT also showed the greatest increases in SRT. These results indicate that the mechanisms underlying the initiation of eye and hand movements are linked. In particular, the results suggest that the initiation of an eye movement to a manual target depends, at least in part, on the specification of hand movement.

The purpose of this study was to examine the role of binocular vision during a prehension task performed in a visually enriched environment where the target object was surrounded by distractors/obstacles. Fifteen adults reached and grasped for a cylindrical peg while eye movements and upper limb kinematics were recorded. The complexity of the visual environment was manipulated by varying the number of distractors and by varying the saliency of the target. Gaze behavior (i.e., the latency of the primary gaze shift and frequency of gaze shifts prior to reach initiation) was comparable between viewing conditions. In contrast, a binocular advantage was evident in performance accuracy. Specifically, participants picked up the wrong object twice as often during monocular viewing when the complexity of the environment increased. Reach performance was more efficient during binocular viewing, which was demonstrated by shorter reach reaction time and overall movement time. Reaching movements during the approach phase had higher peak velocity during binocular viewing. During monocular viewing reach trajectories exhibited a direction bias during the acceleration phase, which was leftward during left eye viewing and rightward during right eye viewing. This bias can be explained by the presence of esophoria in the covered eye. The grasping interval was also extended by ~20% during monocular viewing; however, the duration of the return phase after the target was picked up was comparable across viewing conditions. In conclusion, binocular vision provides important input for planning and execution of prehension movements in visually enriched environments. Binocular advantage was evident, regardless of set size or target saliency, indicating that adults plan their movements more cautiously during monocular viewing, even in relatively simple environments with a highly salient target. Nevertheless, in visually-normal adults monocular input provides sufficient information to engage in online control to correct the initial errors in movement planning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the stop-signal paradigm, participants perform a primary reaction task, for example a visual or auditory discrimination task, and have to react to a go stimulus as quickly as possible with a specified motor response. In a certain percentage of trials, after presentation of the stimulus (go signal), another stimulus (stop signal) is presented with a variable stop-signal delay. Whenever a stop signal occurs, the participant is asked to inhibit the execution of the response. Here, an extended test of the popular horse race model for this task (Logan and Cowan, 1984) is presented. Responses for eye and hand movements in both single-task and dual-task conditions were collected. Saccadic reaction times revealed some significant violations of the model's basic assumption of independent go and inhibition processes for all six participants. Saccades that escaped an early stop signal were systematically slower and had smaller amplitudes compared to saccades without a stop signal. Moreover, the analysis of concomitant electromyographic responses recorded from the upper arm suggests the existence of two separate inhibitory mechanisms: a slow, selective, central inhibitory mechanism and a faster, highly efficient, peripheral one, which is probably ineffective for saccades. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although eye movement onset typically precedes hand movement onset when reaching to targets presented in peripheral vision, arm motor commands appear to be issued at around the same time, and possibly in advance, of eye motor commands. A fundamental question, therefore, is whether eye movement initiation is linked or yoked to hand movement. We addressed this issue by having participants reach to targets after adapting to a visuomotor reversal (or 180° rotation) between the position of the unseen hand and the position of a cursor controlled by the hand. We asked whether this reversal, which we expected to increase hand reaction time (HRT), would also increase saccadic reaction time (SRT). As predicted, when moving the cursor to targets under the reversal, HRT increased in all participants. SRT also increased in all but one participant, even though the task for the eyes-shifting gaze to the target-was unaltered by the reversal of hand position feedback. Moreover, the effects of the reversal on SRT and HRT were positively correlated across participants; those who exhibited the greatest increases in HRT also showed the greatest increases in SRT. These results indicate that the mechanisms underlying the initiation of eye and hand movements are linked. In particular, the results suggest that the initiation of an eye movement to a manual target depends, at least in part, on the specification of hand movement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The processes underlying short-term plasticity induced by visuomotor adaptation to a shifted visual field are still debated. Two main sources of error can induce motor adaptation: reaching feedback errors, which correspond to visually perceived discrepancies between hand and target positions, and errors between predicted and actual visual reafferences of the moving hand. These two sources of error are closely intertwined and difficult to disentangle, as both the target and the reaching limb are simultaneously visible. Accordingly, the goal of the present study was to clarify the relative contributions of these two types of errors during a pointing task under prism-displaced vision. In "terminal feedback error" condition, viewing of their hand by subjects was allowed only at movement end, simultaneously with viewing of the target. In "movement prediction error" condition, viewing of the hand was limited to movement duration, in the absence of any visual target, and error signals arose solely from comparisons between predicted and actual reafferences of the hand. In order to prevent intentional corrections of errors, a subthreshold, progressive stepwise increase in prism deviation was used, so that subjects remained unaware of the visual deviation applied in both conditions. An adaptive aftereffect was observed in the "terminal feedback error" condition only. As far as subjects remained unaware of the optical deviation and self-assigned pointing errors, prediction error alone was insufficient to induce adaptation. These results indicate a critical role of hand-to-target feedback error signals in visuomotor adaptation; consistent with recent neurophysiological findings, they suggest that a combination of feedback and prediction error signals is necessary for eliciting aftereffects. They also suggest that feedback error updates the prediction of reafferences when a visual perturbation is introduced gradually and cognitive factors are eliminated or strongly attenuated.