Search

Previous research has revealed rapid feedback mediated responses in one arm to mechanical perturbations applied to the other arm during shared bimanual tasks. We now ask whether these interlimb responses are expressed symmetrically. We tested this question in a virtual reality environment: a cursor representing each hand was used to 'pick up' each end of a virtual bar and place it into a target trough. Near the onset of occasional, unpredictable trials, one arm was perturbed. Regardless of which arm was perturbed, ipsilateral responses were significant during the perturbation. However, responses in the arm contralateral to the perturbation were asymmetric. While the non-dominant arm showed a significant kinematic response to correct the bar orientation when the dominant arm was mechanically perturbed, the dominant arm did not respond when the non-dominant arm was perturbed. We also saw an asymmetric response in early EMG activity, in which only the non-dominant anterior deltoid showed a significant reflex response within 100 milliseconds of perturbation onset in response to dominant arm. This response was consistent with correcting the bar position, but not with correcting its orientation. We conclude that responses to perturbations during bilateral movements are expressed asymmetrically, such that non-dominant arm responses to perturbations to the dominant arm are stronger than dominant arm responses to non-dominant arm perturbations.

We previously demonstrated that lateralization in the neural control of predictive and impedance mechanisms is reflected by interlimb differences in control of bilateral tasks. Aging has been shown to reduce lateralization during unilateral performance, presumably due to greater recruitment of the ipsilateral hemisphere. We now hypothesize that aging-related reduction in the efficiency of neural resources should produce greater behavioral asymmetry during bilateral actions that require hemispheric specialization for each arm. This is because simultaneous control of dominant and nondominant arm function should induce competition for hemisphere-specific resources. To test this hypothesis, we now examine the effect of aging (young, n = 20; old, n = 20) on performance of a mechanically coupled task, in which one arm reaches toward targets while the other arm stabilizes against a spring that connects the two arms. Results indicate better dominant arm reaching performance and better nondominant arm stabilizing performance for both groups. Most notably, limb and joint compliance was lower in the dominant arm, leading to dominant arm deficits in stabilizing performance. Group analysis indicated that older adults showed substantially greater asymmetry in stabilizing against the spring load than did the younger adults. We propose that competition for limited neural resources in older adults is associated with reduced contributions of right hemisphere mechanisms to right-dominant arm stabilizing performance, and thus to greater asymmetry of performance. NEW & NOTEWORTHY We provide evidence for greater asymmetry of interlimb differences in bilateral coordination for stabilizing and preserved asymmetry of reaching with aging. These results provide the first evidence for increased lateralization with aging within the context of a complementary bilateral task.

We have previously proposed a model of motor lateralization that attributes specialization for predictive control of intersegmental coordination to the dominant hemisphere/limb system, and control of limb impedance to the non-dominant system. This hypothesis was developed based on visually targeted discrete reaching movement made predominantly with the shoulder and elbow joints. The purpose of this experiment was to determine whether dominant arm advantages for multi-degree of freedom coordination also occur during continuous distal movements of the wrist that do not involve visual guidance. In other words, are the advantages of the dominant arm restricted to controlling intersegmental coordination during discrete visually targeted reaching movements, or are they more generally related to coordination of multiple degrees of freedom at other joints, regardless of whether the movements are discrete or invoke visual guidance? Eight right-handed participants were instructed to perform alternating wrist ulnar/radial deviation movements at two instructed speeds, slow and fast, with the dominant or the non-dominant arm, and were instructed not to rotate the forearm (pronation/supination) or move the wrist up and down (flexion/extension). This was explained by slowly and passively moving the wrist in each plane during the instructions. Because all the muscles that cross the wrist have moment arms with respect to more than one axis of rotation, intermuscular coordination is required to prevent motion about non-instructed axes of rotation. We included two conditions, a very slow condition, as a control condition, to demonstrate understanding of the task, and an as-fast-as-possible condition to challenge predictive aspect of control, which we hypothesize are specialized to the dominant controller. Our results indicated that during as-fast-as-possible conditions the non-dominant arm incorporated significantly more non-instructed motion, which resulted in greater circumduction at the non-dominant than the dominant wrist. These findings extend the dynamic dominance hypothesis, indicating that the dominant hemisphere-arm system is specialized for predictive control of multiple degrees of freedom, even in movements of the distal arm and made in the absence of visual guidance.

Two contrasting views of handedness can be described as 1) complementary dominance, in which each hemisphere is specialized for different aspects of motor control, and 2) global dominance, in which the hemisphere contralateral to the dominant arm is specialized for all aspects of motor control. The present study sought to determine which motor lateralization hypothesis best predicts motor performance during common bilateral task of stabilizing an object (e.g., bread) with one hand while applying forces to the object (e.g., slicing) using the other hand. We designed an experimental equivalent of this task, performed in a virtual environment with the unseen arms supported by frictionless air-sleds. The hands were connected by a spring, and the task was to maintain the position of one hand while moving the other hand to a target. Thus the reaching hand was required to take account of the spring load to make smooth and accurate trajectories, while the stabilizer hand was required to impede the spring load to keep a constant position. Right-handed subjects performed two task sessions (right-hand reach and left-hand stabilize; left-hand reach and right-hand stabilize) with the order of the sessions counterbalanced between groups. Our results indicate a hand by task-component interaction such that the right hand showed straighter reaching performance whereas the left hand showed more stable holding performance. These findings provide support for the complementary dominance hypothesis and suggest that the specializations of each cerebral hemisphere for impedance and dynamic control mechanisms are expressed during bilateral interactive tasks. NEW & NOTEWORTHY We provide evidence for interlimb differences in bilateral coordination of reaching and stabilizing functions, demonstrating an advantage for the dominant and nondominant arms for distinct features of control. These results provide the first evidence for complementary specializations of each limb-hemisphere system for different aspects of control within the context of a complementary bilateral task.

Previous work (Brown et al., 2003a,b) has shown that limb position drifts when individuals make repetitive movements in the absence of visual feedback. The purpose of this study was to examine whether limb position drift might reflect a misalignment in visual and proprioceptive maps by examining the nature of information used to specify new movements from a drifted limb position. In a virtual reality (VR) environment, participants made continuous movements with their dominant right hand between two targets positioned 15 cm apart, paced by a 0.625-Hz metronome. After 5 cycles, cursor feedback of the hand was removed for the next 44 cycles, which induced an average drift in hand position of roughly 5 cm. On the 50th cycle, participants were required to move to one of 6 new targets from the drifted hand position. Kinematic analysis indicated that movement direction was unambiguously determined by the visual input marked by the original start position, or the last-seen hand position. Forward dynamics analysis revealed that current limb configuration was used to inform joint torques to produce this parallel direction. For new movement specification, accurate proprioceptive information about the drifted limb position was used, even though it was apparently not available for detecting drift in the first place. Movement distance varied directly with the extent of limb drift, although the differentiation of visual and proprioceptive control of distance could not be analyzed, as our control conditions were not significantly different for this measure. We suggest that movement drift, in the absence of visual feedback during cyclic repetitive movements, reflects a misalignment between largely accurate visual and proprioceptive maps, rather than a weighted fusion of the two modalities. Key words: multisensory integration, proprioception, limb position drift, sensory integration, reaching movement.

Background. Previous research has detailed the hemisphere dependence and specific kinematic deficits observed for the less-affected arm of patients with unilateral stroke. Objective. We now examine whether functional motor deficits in the less-affected arm, measured by standardized clinical measures of motor function, also depend on the hemisphere that was damaged and on the severity of contralesional impairment. Methods. We recruited 48 left-hemisphere-damaged (LHD) participants, 62 right-hemisphere-damaged participants, and 54 age-matched control participants. Measures of motor function included the following: (1) Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function Test (JHFT), (2) Grooved Pegboard Test (GPT), and (3) grip strength. We measured the extent of contralesional arm impairment with the upper-extremity component of the Fugl-Meyer (UEFM) assessment of motor impairment. Results. Ipsilesional limb functional performance deficits (JHFT) varied with both the damaged hemisphere and severity of contralesional arm impairment, with the most severe deficits expressed in LHD participants with severe contralesional impairment (UEFM). GPT and grip strength varied with severity of contralesional impairment but not with hemisphere. Conclusions. Stroke survivors with the most severe paretic arm impairment, who must rely on their ipsilesional arm for performing daily activities, have the greatest motor deficit in the less-affected arm. We recommend remediation of this arm to improve functional independence in this group of stroke patients.

Objectives: The cardinal motor deficits seen in ideomotor limb apraxia are thought to arise from damage to internal representations for actions developed through learning and experience. However, whether apraxic patients learn to develop new representations with training is not well understood. We studied the capacity of apraxic patients for motor adaptation, a process associated with the development of a new internal representation of the relationship between movements and their sensory effects. Methods: Thirteen healthy adults and 23 patients with left hemisphere stroke (12 apraxic, 11 nonapraxic) adapted to a 30-degree visuomotor rotation. Results: While healthy and nonapraxic participants successfully adapted, apraxics did not. Rather, they showed a rapid decrease in error early but no further improvement thereafter, suggesting a deficit in the slow, but not the fast component of a dual-process model of adaptation. The magnitude of this late learning deficit was predicted by the degree of apraxia, and was correlated with the volume of damage in parietal cortex. Apraxics also demonstrated an initial after-effect similar to the other groups likely reflecting the early learning, but this after-effect was not sustained and performance returned to baseline levels more rapidly, consistent with a disrupted slow learning process. Conclusions: These findings suggest that the early phase of learning may be intact in apraxia, but this leads to the development of a fragile representation that is rapidly forgotten. The association between this deficit and left parietal damage points to a key role for this region in learning to form stable internal representations. (JINS, 2017, 23, 139–149)

This experiment tested the hypothesis that interlimb transfer of motor performance depends on recruitment of motor control processes that are specialized to the hemisphere contralateral to the arm that is initially trained. Right-handed participants performed a single-joint task, in which reaches were targeted to 4 different distances. While the speed and accuracy was similar for both hands, the underlying control mechanisms used to vary movement speed with distance were systematically different between the arms: The amplitude of the initial acceleration profiles scaled greater with movement speed for the right-dominant arm, while the duration of the initial acceleration profile scaled greater with movement speed for the left-non-dominant arm. These two processes were previously shown to be differentially disrupted by left and right hemisphere damage, respectively. We now hypothesize that task practice with the right arm might reinforce left-hemisphere mechanisms that vary acceleration amplitude with distance, while practice with the left arm might reinforce right-hemisphere mechanisms that vary acceleration duration with distance. We thus predict that following right arm practice, the left arm should show increased contributions of acceleration amplitude to peak velocities, and following left arm practice, the right arm should show increased contributions of acceleration duration to peak velocities. Our findings support these predictions, indicating that asymmetry in interlimb transfer of motor performance, at least in the task used here, depends on recruitment of lateralized motor control processes.

We explored the changes in multi-finger synergies in patients after a single cortical stroke with mild motor impairments. We hypothesized that both synergy indices and anticipatory synergy adjustments prior to the initiation of a self-paced quick action would be diminished in the patients compared to age-matched controls. The patients with history of cortical stroke, and age-matched controls (n = 12 in each group) performed one-finger and multi-finger accurate force production tasks involving both steady-state and quick force pulse production. Finger interdependence (enslaving) and multi-finger synergies stabilizing total force were quantified. The stroke patients showed lower maximal finger forces, in particular in the contralesional hand, which also showed increased enslaving indices. Multi-finger synergies during steady-state force production were, however, unchanged after stroke. In contrast, a drop in the synergy index prior to the force pulse generation was significantly delayed in the stroke patients. Our results show that mild cortical stroke leads to no significant changes in multifinger synergies, but there is impairment in feed-forward adjustments of the synergies prior to a quick action, a drop in the maximal force production, and an increase in enslaving. We conclude that studies of synergies reveal two aspects of synergic control differentially affected by cortical stroke.

Previous studies proposed that selecting which hand to use for a reaching task appears to be modulated by a factor described as "task difficulty". However, what features of a task might contribute to greater or lesser "difficulty" in the context of hand selection decisions has yet to be determined. There has been evidence that biomechanical and kinematic factors such as movement smoothness and work can predict patterns of selection across the workspace, suggesting a role of predictive cost analysis in hand-selection. We hypothesize that this type of prediction for hand-selection should recruit substantial cognitive resources and thus should be influenced by cognitive-perceptual loading. We test this hypothesis by assessing the role of cognitive-perceptual loading on hand selection decisions, using a visual search task that presents different levels of difficulty (cognitive-perceptual load), as established in previous studies on overall response time and efficiency of visual search. Although the data are necessarily preliminary due to small sample size, our data suggested an influence of cognitive-perceptual load on hand selection, such that the dominant hand was selected more frequently as cognitive load increased. Interestingly, cognitive-perceptual loading also increased cross-midline reaches with both hands. Because crossing midline is more costly in terms of kinematic and kinetic factors, our findings suggest that cognitive processes are normally engaged to avoid costly actions, and that the choice not-to-cross midline requires cognitive resources.

Our previous studies on healthy individuals and stroke patients led us to propose that the dominant and nondominant arms are specialized for distinct motor control processes. We hypothesize that the dominant arm is specialized for predictive control of limb dynamics, and the nondominant arm is specialized for impedance control. We previously introduced a hybrid control scheme to explain lateralization of single-joint elbow movements. In this paper we apply a similar computational framework to explore interlimb differences in multi-joint reaching movements: the movements of both arms are initiated using predictive control mechanisms, and terminated using impedance mechanisms. Four parameters characterize predictive mechanisms, four parameters characterize impedance mechanisms, and the ninth parameter describes the instant of switch between the two modes of control. Based on our hypothesis of motor lateralization, we predict an early switch to impedance control for the nondominant arm, but a late switch, near the end of motion, for the dominant arm. We fit our model to multi-joint reaching movements of each arm, made in the horizontal plane. Our results reveal that the more curved trajectories of the nondominant arm are characterized by an early switch to impedance mechanisms, in the initial phase of motion near peak velocity. In contrast, the trajectories of the dominant arm were best fit, when the switch to impedance mechanisms occurred late in the deceleration phase of motion. These results support a model of motor lateralization in which the dominant controller is specialized for predictive control of task dynamics, while the nondominant arm is specialized for impedance control mechanisms. For the first time, we are able to operationally define handedness expressed during multi-joint movements by applying a computational control model.

Successful achievement of task goals depends critically on the ability to adjust ongoing actions in response to environmental changes. The neural substrates underlying action modification have been a topic of great controversy: both, posterior parietal cortex and frontal regions, particularly prefrontal cortex have been previously identified as crucial in this regard, with most studies arguing in favor of one or the other. We aimed to address this controversy and understand whether frontal and parietal regions might play distinct roles during action modification. We tested ipsilesional arm performance of 27 stroke patients with focal lesions to frontal or parietal regions of the left or right cerebral hemisphere, and left or right arm performance of 18 healthy subjects on the classic double-step task in which a target is unpredictably displaced to a new location, requiring modification of the ongoing action. Only right hemisphere frontal lesions adversely impacted the timing of initiation of the modified response, while only left hemisphere parietal lesions impaired the accuracy of the modified action. Patients with right frontal lesions tended to complete the ongoing action to the initially displayed baseline target and initiated the new movement after a significant delay. In contrast, patients with left parietal damage did not accurately reach the new target location, but compared to the other groups, initiated the new action during an earlier phase of motion, before their baseline action was complete. Our findings thus suggest distinct, hemisphere specific contributions of frontal and parietal regions to action modification, and bring together, for the first time, disparate sets of prior findings about its underlying neural substrates.

We have proposed a model of motor lateralization, in which the left and right hemispheres are specialized for different aspects of motor control: the left hemisphere for predicting and accounting for limb dynamics and the right hemisphere for stabilizing limb position through impedance control mechanisms. Our previous studies, demonstrating different motor deficits in the ipsilesional arm of stroke patients with left or right hemisphere damage, provided a critical test of our model. However, motor deficits after stroke are most prominent on the contralesional side. Post-stroke rehabilitation has also, naturally, focused on improving contralesional arm impairment and function. Understanding whether contralesional motor deficits differ depending on the hemisphere of damage is, therefore, of vital importance for assessing the impact of brain damage on function and also for designing rehabilitation interventions specific to laterality of damage. We, therefore, asked whether motor deficits in the contralesional arm of unilateral stroke patients reflect hemisphere-dependent control mechanisms. Because our model of lateralization predicts that contralesional deficits will differ depending on the hemisphere of damage, this study also served as an essential assessment of our model. Stroke patients with mild to moderate hemiparesis in either the left or right arm because of contralateral stroke and healthy control subjects performed targeted multi-joint reaching movements in different directions. As predicted, our results indicated a double dissociation; although left hemisphere damage was associated with greater errors in trajectory curvature and movement direction, errors in movement extent were greatest after right hemisphere damage. Thus, our results provide the first demonstration of hemisphere specific motor control deficits in the contralesional arm of stroke patients. Our results also suggest that it is critical to consider the differential deficits induced by right or left hemisphere lesions to enhance post-stroke rehabilitation interventions.

Previous studies examining lateralization of arm movements focused on supported movements in the horizontal plane, removing the effects of gravity. The authors hypothesized that interlimb differences in free reaching would be consistent with the differences shown during supported reaching. Kinematic and kinetic data were collected for the forearm and upper arm segments in a 3-direction reaching task. Results showed lateralization of coordination, reflected by initial movement direction and trajectory curvature. The nondominant arm showed increased initial direction errors, and path curvature associated with a timing deficit between elbow and shoulder peak torques. These coordination deficits did not disrupt final position accuracy. The authors conclude that nondominant arm coordination deficits are similar to those reported previously for horizontal plane movements.

Directional preferences during center-out horizontal shoulder–elbow movements were previously characterized for the dominant arm. These preferences were attributed to a tendency to actively accelerate one joint, while exploiting largely passive motion at the other joint. Since the non-dominant arm is known for inefficient coordination of inter-segmental dynamics, here we hypothesized that directional preferences would differ between the arms. A center-out free-stroke drawing task was used that allowed freedom in the selection of movement directions. The task was performed both with and without a secondary cognitive task that has been shown to increase directional biases of the dominant arm. Mirror-symmetrical directional preferences were observed in both arms, with similar bias strength and secondary task effects. The preferred directions were characterized by maximal exploitation of interaction torques for movement production, but only in the dominant arm. The non-dominant arm failed to benefit from interaction torques. The results point to a hierarchical architecture of control. At the higher level, a movement capable to perform the task while satisfying preferences in joint control is specified through forward dynamic transformations. This process is mediated for both arms from a common neural network adapted to the dominant arm and, specifically, to its ability to exploit interaction torques. Dynamic transformations that determine actual control commands are specified at the lower level of control. An alternative interpretation that strokes might be planned evenly across directions, and biases emerge during movement execution due to anisotropic resistance of intrinsic factors that do not depend on arm dominance is also discussed.

Our proficiency at any skill is critically dependent on the ability to monitor our performance, correct errors and adapt subsequent movements so that errors are avoided in the future. In this study, we aimed to dissociate the neural substrates critical for correcting unexpected trajectory errors and learning to adapt future movements based on those errors. Twenty stroke patients with focal damage to frontal or parietal regions in the left or right brain hemispheres and 20 healthy controls performed a task in which a novel mapping between actual hand motion and its visual feedback was introduced. Only patients with frontal damage in the right hemisphere failed to correct for this discrepancy during the ongoing movement. However, these patients were able to adapt to the distortion such that their movement direction on subsequent trials improved. In contrast, only patients with parietal damage in the left hemisphere showed a clear deficit in movement adaptation, but not in online correction. Left frontal or right parietal damage did not adversely impact upon either process. Our findings thus identify, for the first time, distinct and lateralized neural substrates critical for correcting unexpected errors during ongoing movements and error-based movement adaptation.

Our previous studies of limb coordination in healthy right and left-handers led to the development of a theoretical model of motor lateralization, dynamic dominance, which was recently supported by studies in patients with unilateral stroke (For Review, see Sainburg, 2010: Lateralization of Goal-Directed Movements, in Human Kinetics). One of our most robust findings was on single joint movements in young healthy subjects (Sainburg and Schaefer, 2004: Interlimb differences in control of movement extent). In this study, subjects made elbow joint reaching movements toward 4 targets of different amplitudes with each arm. Whereas, both arms achieved equivalent task performance, each did so through different strategies. The dominant arm strategy scaled peak acceleration with peak velocity and movement extent, while the nondominant strategy adjusted acceleration duration to achieve the different velocities and distances. We now propose that these observed interlimb differences can be explained using a serial hybrid controller, in which movements are initiated using predictive control and terminated using impedance control. Further, we propose that the two arms should differ in the relative time that control switches from the predictive to the impedance mechanisms. We present a mathematical formulation of our hybrid controller and then test the plausibility of this control paradigm by investigating how well our model can explain interlimb differences in experimental data. Our findings confirm that the model predicts early shifts between controllers for left arm movements, which rely on impedance control mechanisms, and late shifts for right arm movements, which rely on predictive control mechanisms. This is the first computational model of motor lateralization, and is consistent with our theoretical model that emerged from empirical findings. It represents a first step in consolidating our theoretical understanding of motor lateralization into an operational model of control.

In this study, we examine whether corrections made during an ongoing movement are differentially affected by left hemisphere damage (LHD) and right hemisphere damage (RHD). Our hypothesis of motor lateralization proposes that control mechanisms specialized to the right hemisphere rely largely on online processes, while the left hemisphere primarily utilizes predictive mechanisms to specify optimal coordination patterns. We therefore predict that RHD, but not LHD, should impair online correction when task goals are unexpectedly changed. Fourteen stroke subjects (7 LHD, 7 RHD) and 14 healthy controls reached to 1 of the 3 targets that unexpectedly “jumped” during movement onset. RHD subjects showed a considerable delay in initiating the corrective response relative to controls and LHD subjects. However, both stroke groups made large final position errors on the target jump trials. Position deficits following LHD were associated with poor intersegmental coordination, while RHD subjects had difficulty terminating their movements appropriately. These findings confirm that RHD, but not LHD, produces a deficit in the timing of online corrections and also indicate that both stroke groups show position deficits that are related to the specialization of their damaged hemisphere. Further research is needed to identify specific neural circuits within each hemisphere critical for these processes.

The question addressed in this study is whether parietal brain circuits involved in adaptation to novel visuomotor conditions are lateralized. This information is critical for characterizing the neural mechanisms mediating adaptive behavior in humans, as well as for assessing the effects of unilateral brain damage on function. Moreover, previous research has been controversial in this regard. We compared visuomotor adaptation in 10 patients with focal, unilateral, left or right parietal lesions and healthy control participants. All subjects reached to each of eight targets over three experimental sessions: a baseline session, where the visually displayed and actual hand motion were matched; an adaptation session, where the visual feedback deviated from the actual movement direction by 30°; and an after-effect session, where visual feedback was again matched to hand motion. Adaptation was primarily quantified as a change in initial movement direction throughout the adaptation session and the presence of after-effects when the rotation was removed. Patients with right parietal damage demonstrated normal adaptation and large after-effects, which was comparable to the performance of healthy controls. In contrast, patients with left parietal damage showed a clear deficit in adaptation and showed no after-effects. Thus, our results show that left but not right parietal regions are critical for visuomotor adaptation. These findings are discussed in the context that left parietal regions are critical for the modification of stored representations of the relationship between movement commands and limb and environmental state, as is thought to occur during visuomotor adaptation.

Hemispheric asymmetry reduction in older adults (HAROLD) has been reported in previous imaging studies that employed not only cognitive, but also motor tasks. However, whether age-related reductions in asymmetry of hemispheric activations affect the symmetry of motor behavior in older adults remains largely untested. We now examine the effect of aging on lateralization of motor adaptation and transfer by investigating adaptation to novel visuomotor transformations in both old and young age groups. We have previously reported substantial asymmetries in interlimb transfer of learning these transformations in young adults, and attributed these asymmetries in transfer to hemispheric lateralization for motor control, as detailed by our dynamic dominance hypothesis. Based on the HAROLD model, we reasoned that older adults should recruit more symmetrical hemispheric activity, and thus show more symmetrical transfer of adaptation across the arms. Half of the subjects in each age group first adapted to a rotated visual display with the left arm, then with the right arm; and the other half in the reversed order. Naïve performance with one arm and the same-arm performance following opposite arm adaptation were compared to determine the extent of transfer in each age group. Our results showed that interlimb transfer of initial direction information only occurred from the non-dominant to dominant arm in young adults, whereas it occurred in both directions in older adults. Our findings clearly indicate substantially reduced asymmetry in visuomotor adaptation in older adults, and suggest that this reduced motor asymmetry might be related to diminished hemispheric lateralization for motor control.

This study was designed to determine how visual feedback mediates error corrections during reaching. We used visuomotor rotations to dissociate a cursor, representing finger position, from the actual finger location. We then extinguished cursor feedback at different distances from the start location to determine whether corrections were based on error extrapolation from prior cursor information. Results indicated that correction amplitude varied with the extent of cursor feedback. A second experiment tested specific aspects of error information that might mediate corrections to visuomotor rotations: rotation angle, distance between the finger and cursor positions and the duration of cursor exposure. Results showed that corrections did not depend on the amplitude of the rotation angle or the amount of time the cursor was shown. Instead, participants corrected for the cursor–finger distance, at the point where cursor feedback was last-seen. These findings suggest that within-trial corrections and inter-trial adaptation might employ different mechanisms.

Brain lateralization is a ubiquitous feature of neural organization across the vertebrate spectrum. We have developed a model of motor lateralization that attributes different motor control processes to each cerebral hemisphere. This bilateral hemispheric model of motor control has successfully predicted hemisphere-specific motor control and motor learning deficits in the ipsilesional, or non-paretic, arm of patients with unilateral stroke. We now show across large number and range of stroke patients that these motor performance deficits in the non-paretic arm of stroke patients vary with both the side of the lesion, as well as with the severity of contralesional impairment. This last point can be functionally devastating for patients with severe contralesional paresis because for these individuals, performance of upper extremity activities of daily living depends primarily and often exclusively on ipsilesional arm function. We present a pilot study focused on improving the speed and coordination of ipsilesional arm function in a convenience sample of three stroke patients with severe contralesional impairment. Over a three-week period, patients received a total of nine 1.5 h sessions of training that included intense practice of virtual reality and real-life tasks. Our results indicated substantial improvements in ipsilesional arm movement kinematics, functional performance, and that these improvements carried over to improve functional independence. In addition, the contralesional arm improved in our measure of contralesional impairment, which was likely due to improved participation in activities of daily living. We discuss of our findings for physical rehabilitation.

Previous research on single joint movements has lead to the development of models of control that propose that movement speed and distance are controlled through an initial pulsatile signal that can be modified in both amplitude and duration. However, the manner in which the amplitude and duration are modulated during the control of movement remains controversial. We now report two studies that were designed to differentiate the mechanisms used to control movement speed from those employed to control final position accuracy. In our first study, participants move at a series of speeds to a single spatial target. In this task, acceleration duration (pulse-width) varied substantially across speeds, and was negatively correlated with peak acceleration (pulse-height). In a second experiment, we removed the spatial target, but required movements at the three speeds similar to those used in the first study. In this task, acceleration amplitude varied extensively across the speed targets, while acceleration duration remained constant. Taken together, our current findings demonstrate that pulse-width measures can be modulated independently from pulse-height measures, and that a positive correlation between such measures is not obligatory, even when sampled across a range of movement speeds. In addition, our findings suggest that pulse-height modulation plays a primary role in controlling movement speed and specifying target distance, whereas pulse-width mechanisms are employed to correct errors in pulse-height control, as required to achieve spatial precision in final limb position.

Recent reports of functional impairment in the ‘unaffected’ limb of stroke patients have suggested that these deficits vary with the side of lesion. This not only supports the idea that the ipsilateral hemisphere contributes to arm movements, but also implies that such contributions are lateralized. We have previously suggested that the left and right hemispheres are specialized for controlling different features of movement. In reaching movements, the non-dominant arm appears better adapted for achieving accurate final positions and the dominant arm for specifying initial trajectory features, such as movement direction and peak acceleration. The purpose of this study was to determine whether different features of control could characterize ipsilesional motor deficits following stroke. Healthy control subjects and patients with either left- or right-hemisphere damage performed targeted single-joint elbow movements of different amplitudes in their ipsilateral hemi-space. We predicted that left-hemisphere damage would produce deficits in specification of initial trajectory features, while right-hemisphere damage would produce deficits in final position accuracy. Consistent with our predictions, patients with left, but not right, hemisphere damage showed reduced modulation of acceleration amplitude. However, patients with right, but not left, hemisphere damage showed significantly larger errors in final position, which corresponded to reduced modulation of acceleration duration. Neither patient group differed from controls in terms of movement speed. Instead, the mechanisms by which speed was specified, through modulation of acceleration amplitude and modulation of acceleration duration, appeared to be differentially affected by left- and right-hemisphere damage. These findings support the idea that each hemisphere contributes differentially to the control of initial trajectory and final position, and that ipsilesional deficits following stroke reflect this lateralization in control.

Recent studies of arm movement reaching to a target have provided support for the Dynamic Dominance model of handedness, which proposes that each hemisphere/limb system is specialized for controlling different features of performance: The dominant system for control of the trajectory, and the nondominant system for control of the steady state final position. We now examine a more general form of this hypothesis by investigating differences between the right and left hands of right-handed persons in their ability to stabilize the combined action of a set of fingers. The subjects produced very quick pulses and steps of force from a low background force level while pressing with four fingers of one hand. An index of force stabilizing synergy showed a strong multi-finger synergy during steady-state force production followed by a small anticipatory drop in the index prior to the force increase. Hand differences emerged during the force increase: The left (non-dominant) hand showed a significantly larger drop in the synergy index. While our findings support the idea that the dominant system is specialized for stabilizing quick changes in performance variables, we failed to support a nondominant specialization for stabilizing steady-state isometric force. This may be a ceiling effect due to the simplicity of the task for either hand, or it might indicate that this aspect of the dynamic dominance hypothesis does not generalize to isometric conditions.

The goal of this study was to determine whether the sensory nature of a target influences the roles of vision and proprioception in the planning of movement distance. Two groups of subjects made rapid, elbow extension movements, either toward a visual target or toward the index fingertip of the unseen opposite hand. Visual feedback of the reaching index fingertip was only available before movement onset. Using a virtual reality display, we randomly introduced a discrepancy between actual and virtual (cursor) fingertip location. When subjects reached toward the visual target, movement distance varied with changes in visual information about initial hand position. For the proprioceptive target, movement distance varied mostly with changes in proprioceptive information about initial position. The effect of target modality was already present at the time of peak acceleration, indicating that this effect include feedforward processes. Our results suggest that the relative contributions of vision and proprioception to motor planning can change, depending on the modality in which task relevant information is represented.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the contribution of proprioceptive and visual information about initial limb position in controlling the distance of rapid, single-joint reaching movements. Using a virtual reality environment, we systematically changed the relationship between actual and visually displayed hand position as subjects' positioned a cursor within a start circle. No visual feedback was given during the movement. Subjects reached two visual targets (115 and 125 degrees elbow angle) from four start locations (90, 95, 100, and 105 degrees elbow angle) under four mismatch conditions (0, 5, 10, or 15 degrees). A 2 x 4 x 4 ANOVA enabled us to ask whether the subjects controlled the movement distance in accord with the virtual, or the actual hand location. Our results indicate that the movement distance was mainly controlled according to the virtual start location. Whereas distance modification was most extensive for the closer target, analysis of acceleration profiles revealed that, regardless of target position, visual information about start location determined the initial peak in tangential hand acceleration. Peak acceleration scaled with peak velocity and movement distance, a phenomenon termed "pulse-height" control. In contrast, proprioceptive information about actual hand location determined the duration of acceleration, which also scaled with peak velocity and movement distance, a phenomenon termed "pulse-width" control. Because pulse-height and pulse-width mechanisms reflect movement planning and sensory-based corrective processes, respectively, our current findings indicate that vision is used primarily for planning movement distance, while proprioception is used primarily for online corrections during rapid, unseen movements toward visual targets.

We have previously shown that when both arms learn visuo-motor tasks within the shared midline workspace, transfer becomes asymmetrical: initial direction information only transfers from the nondominant to the dominant arm, whereas the final position information only transfers from the dominant to the nondominant arm. We now examine whether symmetry of interlimb transfer depends on the location of workspace provided for the two arms, by investigating the pattern of interlimb transfer when each arm adapts to a 30 degree rotation at its ipsilateral workspace. All subjects performed center-out reaching movements while adapting to a 30 degree rotation in the visual display. Half the subjects performed with the nondominant arm first and then the dominant arm, while the other half performed with the dominant arm first and then the nondominant arm. To assess transfer, naïve performance and the performance following opposite arm adaptation were compared for each arm separately. Our results indicate unambiguous transfer that is symmetrical: both arms benefited from opposite arm training in terms of initial direction control. In terms of final position information, neither arm benefited from opposite arm training. This clearly demonstrates that symmetry of interlimb transfer depends on the location of workspace provided for the two arms. Our findings suggest that when visuo-motor tasks are performed within a shared midline workspace, the nondominant controller is selectively inhibited from access to dominant controller information, due to a certain competition between the two limb/hemisphere systems that is introduced by the shared nature of the workspace.

Previous research has shown that training of a novel task can improve subsequent performance in the opposite arm owing to anticipation of the previously learned task conditions. Interestingly, we recently reported preliminary evidence that such transfer might also include modulation of feedback-mediated responses. We now test interlimb transfer of load compensation responses, measured through kinematic and EMG recordings during rapid 20 degrees elbow flexion movements. Two subject groups, LR and RL, each comprising six right-handed subjects, first performed using either the left (LR) or right (RL) arm, followed by opposite arm performance. After 30 trials of consistent performance, five random trials within a background of 50 trials were loaded with a 2-kg mass prior to the "go" signal. We compared load compensation responses for naive performance with those following opposite arm exposure. Under naive conditions, the resulting load compensation responses began about 50 ms following movement onset, and were substantially more effective for the nondominant arm. Opposite arm exposure substantially improved the accuracy of only dominant arm responses. This, however, did not occur through changes in the short latency components of the load compensation response. Instead, changes in muscle activities, associated with interlimb transfer, began some 150 ms following movement onset. We expect that these changes represent transfer in the "volitional" component of the load compensation response. Because the shorter latency response was unaffected by opposite arm exposure, modulation of this component likely requires prior experience with limb specific effectors.

Mechanisms underlying interlimb transfer of adaptation to visuomotor rotations have recently been explored in depth. However, little data are available regarding interlimb transfer of adaptation to novel inertial dynamics. The present study thus investigated interlimb transfer of dynamics by examining the effect of initial training with one arm on subsequent performance with the other in adaptation to a 1.5-kg mass attached eccentrically to the forearm. Using inverse dynamic analysis, we examined the changes in torque strategies associated with adaptation to the extra mass, and with interlimb transfer of that adaptation. Following initial training with the dominant arm, nondominant arm performance improved substantially in terms of linearity and initial direction control as compared with naïve performance. However, initial training with the nondominant arm had no effect on subsequent performance with the dominant arm. Inverse dynamic analysis revealed that improvements in kinematics were implemented by increasing flexor muscle torques at the elbow to counter load-induced increases in extensor interaction torques as well as increasing flexor muscle torques at the shoulder to counter the extensor actions of elbow muscle torque. Following opposite arm adaptation, the nondominant arm adopted this dynamic strategy early in adaptation. These findings suggest that dominant arm adaptation to novel inertial dynamics leads to information that can be accessed and utilized by the opposite arm controller, but not vice versa. When compared with our previous findings on interlimb transfer of visuomotor rotations, our current findings suggest that adaptations to visuomotor and dynamic transformations are mediated by distinct neural mechanisms.

In the absence of visual feedback, subject reports of hand location tend to drift over time. Such drift has been attributed to a gradual reduction in the usefulness of proprioception to signal limb position. If this account is correct, drift should degrade the accuracy of movement distance and direction over a series of movements made without visual feedback. To test this hypothesis, we asked participants to perform six series of 75 repetitive movements from a visible start location to a visible target, in time with a regular, audible tone. Fingertip position feedback was given by a cursor during the first five trials in the series. Feedback was then removed, and participants were to continue on pace for the next 70 trials. Movements were made in two directions (30 degrees and 120 degrees ) from each of three start locations (initial shoulder angles of 30 degrees, 40 degrees, 50 degrees, and initial elbow angles of 90 degrees ). Over the 70 trials, the start location of each movement drifted, on average, 8 cm away from the initial start location. This drift varied systematically with movement direction, indicating that drift is related to movement production. However, despite these dramatic changes in hand position and joint configuration, movement distance and direction remained relatively constant. Inverse dynamics analysis revealed that movement preservation was accompanied by substantial modification of joint muscle torque. These results suggest that proprioception continues to be a reliable source of limb position information after prolonged time without vision, but that this information is used differently for maintaining limb position and for specifying movement trajectory.

Recent findings from our laboratory suggest that a major factor distinguishing dominant from nondominant arm performance is the ability by which the effects of intersegmental dynamics are controlled by the CNS. These studies indicated that the dominant arm reliably used more torque-efficient patterns for movements made with similar speeds and accuracy than nondominant arm movements. Whereas, nondominant hand-path curvatures systematically varied with the amplitude of the interaction torques transferred between the segments of the moving limb, dominant hand-path curvatures did not. However, our previous studies did not distinguish whether dominant arm coordination advantages emerged from more effective control of dynamic factors or were simply a secondary effect of planning different kinematics. The purpose of this study was to further investigate interlimb differences in coordination through analysis of inverse dynamics and electromyography recorded during the performance of reaching movements. By controlling the amplitude of intersegmental dynamics in the current study, we were able to assess whether systematic differences in torque-efficiency exist, even when differences in hand-path shape were minimal. Subject's arms were supported in the horizontal plane by a frictionless air-jet system and were constrained to movements about the shoulder and elbow joints. Two targets were designed, such that the interaction torques elicited at the elbow were either large or small. Our results showed that the former produced large differences in hand-path curvature, whereas the latter did not. Additionally, the movements with small differences in hand-path kinematics showed substantial differences in torque patterns and corresponding EMG profiles which implied a more torque-efficient strategy for the dominant arm. In view of these findings we propose that distinct neural control mechanisms are employed for dominant and nondominant arm movements.

Handedness is a prominent behavioral phenomenon that emerges from asymmetrical neural organization of human motor systems. However, the aspects of motor performance that correspond to handedness remain largely undetermined. A recent study examining interlimb differences in coordination of reaching demonstrated dominant arm advantages in controlling limb segment inertial dynamics (Sainburg and Kalakanis 2000). Based on these findings, I now propose the dynamic-dominance hypothesis, which states that the essential factor that distinguishes dominant from nondominant arm performance is the facility governing the control of limb dynamics. The purpose of this study is to test two predictions of this hypothesis: 1) adaptation to novel intersegmental dynamics, requiring the development of new dynamic transforms, should be more effective for the dominant arm; 2) there should be no difference in adapting to visuomotor rotations performed with the dominant as compared with the nondominant arm. The latter prediction is based on the idea that visual information about target position is translated into an internal reference frame prior to transformation of the movement plan into dynamic properties, which reflect the forces required to produce movement. To test these predictions, dominant arm adaptation is compared to nondominant arm adaptation during exposure to novel inertial loads and to novel visuomotor rotations. The results indicate substantial interlimb differences in adaptation to novel inertial dynamics, but equivalent adaptation to novel visuomotor rotations. Inverse dynamic analysis revealed better coordination of dominant arm muscle torques across both shoulder and elbow joints, as compared with nondominant arm muscle torques. As a result, dominant arm movements were produced with a fraction of the mean squared muscle torque computed for nondominant arm movements made at similar speeds. These results support the dynamic-dominance hypothesis, indicating that interlimb asymmetries in control arise downstream to visuomotor transformations, when dynamic variables that correspond to the forces required for motion are specified.

We previously reported that asymmetrical patterns of hand preference are updated and modified by current sensorimotor conditions. We now examine whether participation in long-term training in the upper extremity sport fencing might modify arm selection and performance asymmetries. Eight fencers and eight non-fencers performed reaching movements under three experimental conditions: (1) non-choice right; (2) non-choice left; and (3) choice, either right or left arm as selected by subject. The non-choice conditions allowed assessment of potential interlimb differences in movement performance, while the choice condition allowed assessment of the frequency and pattern of arm selection across subject groups. Our findings showed that the athlete groups showed substantially greater symmetry in both our performance and selection measures. These findings suggest that arm selection and performance asymmetries can be altered by intense long-term practice.

This study compares the coordination patterns employed for the left and right arms during rapid targeted reaching movements. Six right-handed subjects reached to each of three targets, designed to elicit progressively greater amplitude interaction torques at the elbow joint. All targets required the same elbow excursion (20°), but different shoulder excursions (5, 10, and 15°, respectively). Movements were restricted to the shoulder and elbow and supported on a horizontal plane by a frictionless air-jet system. Subjects received visual feedback only of the final hand position with respect to the start and target locations. For motivation, points were awarded based on final position accuracy for movements completed within an interval of 400–600 ms. For all subjects, the right and left hands showed a similar time course of improvement in final position accuracy over repeated trials. After task adaptation, final position accuracy was similar for both hands; however, the hand trajectories and joint coordination patterns during the movements were systematically different. Right hand paths showed medial to lateral curvatures that were consistent in magnitude for all target directions, whereas the left hand paths had lateral to medial curvatures that increased in magnitude across the three target directions. Inverse dynamic analysis revealed substantial differences in the coordination of muscle and intersegmental torques for the left and right arms. Although left elbow muscle torque contributed largely to elbow acceleration, right arm coordination was characterized by a proximal control strategy, in which movement of both joints was primarily driven by the effects of shoulder muscles. In addition, right hand path direction changes were independent of elbow interaction torque impulse, indicating skillful coordination of muscle actions with intersegmental dynamics. In contrast, left hand path direction changes varied directly with elbow interaction torque impulse. These findings strongly suggest that distinct neural control mechanisms are employed for dominant and non dominant arm movements. However, whether interlimb differences in neural strategies are a consequence of asymmetric use of the two arms, or vice versa, is not yet understood. The implications for neural organization of voluntary movement control are discussed.

Handedness is a pronounced feature of human motor behavior, yet the underlying neural mechanisms remain unclear. We hypothesize that motor lateralization results from asymmetries in predictive control of task dynamics and in control of limb impedance. To test this hypothesis, we present an experiment with two different force field environments, a field with a predictable magnitude that varies with the square of velocity, and a field with a less predictable magnitude that varies linearly with velocity. These fields were designed to be compatible with controllers that are specialized in predicting limb and task dynamics, and modulating position and velocity dependent impedance, respectively. Because the velocity square field does not change the form of the equations of motion for the reaching arm, we reasoned that a forward dynamic-type controller should perform well in this field, while control of linear damping and stiffness terms should be less effective. In contrast, the unpredictable linear field should be most compatible with impedance control, but incompatible with predictive dynamics control. We measured steady state final position accuracy and 3 trajectory features during exposure to these fields: Mean squared jerk, Straightness, and Movement time. Our results confirmed that each arm made straighter, smoother, and quicker movements in its compatible field. Both arms showed similar final position accuracies, which were achieved using more extensive corrective sub-movements when either arm performed in its incompatible field. Finally, each arm showed limited adaptation to its incompatible field. Analysis of the dependence of trajectory errors on field magnitude suggested that dominant arm adaptation occurred by prediction of the mean field, thus exploiting predictive mechanisms for adaptation to the unpredictable field. Overall, our results support the hypothesis that motor lateralization reflects asymmetries in specific motor control mechanisms associated with predictive control of limb and task dynamics, and modulation of limb impedance.

Directional preferences have previously been demonstrated during horizontal arm movements. These preferences were characterized by a tendency to exploit interaction torques for movement production at the shoulder or elbow, indicating that the preferred directions depend on biomechanical, and not on visual perception-based factors. We directly tested this hypothesis by systematically dissociating visual information from arm biomechanics. Sixteen subjects performed a free-stroke drawing task that required performance of fast strokes from the circle center toward the perimeter, while selecting stroke directions in a random order. Hand position was represented by a cursor displayed in the movement plane. The free-stroke drawing was performed twice, before and after visuomotor adaptation to a 30° clockwise rotation of the perceived hand path. The adaptation was achieved during practicing pointing movements to eight center-out targets. Directional preferences during performance of the free-stroke drawing task were revealed in ten out of the sixteen subjects. The orientation and strength of these preferences were largely the same in both conditions, showing no significant effect of the visuomotor adaptation. In both conditions, the major preferred directions were characterized by higher contribution of interaction torque to net torque at the shoulder as well as by relatively low inertial resistance and the sum of squared shoulder and elbow muscle torques. These results support the hypothesis that directional preferences are largely determined by biomechanical factors. However, this biomechanical effect can decrease or even disappear in some subjects when movements are performed in special conditions, such as the virtual environment used here.

Human handedness has been described and measured from two perspectives: handedness inventories rate hand preferences, whereas other tests examine motor performance asymmetries. These two measurement approaches reflect a major controversy in a literature that defines handedness as either a preference or an asymmetry in sensorimotor processing. Over the past decade, our laboratory has developed a model of handedness based on lateralization of neural processes. This model attributes distinct control processes to each hemisphere, which in turn lead to observable interlimb sensorimotor performance asymmetries. We now hypothesize that arm preference, or choice, may depend on the interaction between sensorimotor performance asymmetries and the given task. The purpose of this study is to examine whether arm selection is linked to interlimb performance asymmetries during reaching. Right-handed subjects made choice and nonchoice reaches to each of eight targets ( d = 3.5 cm) arranged radially ( r = 13 cm) around a midline starting position. We displaced each cursor (one associated with each hand) 30 cm to the midline start circle to ensure that there were no hemispace-related geometric, mechanical, or perceptual biases to use either arm for the two midline targets. The three targets on each side of the midline received mostly reaches from the ipsilateral arm, a tendency previously described as a “hemispace bias.” However, the midline targets, which were equidistant from each hand, received more dominant arm reaches. Dominant arm hand paths to these targets were straighter and more accurately directed. Inverse dynamics analyses revealed a more proficient dominant arm strategy that exploited intersegmental dynamics to a greater extent than did the nondominant arm. These findings suggest that sensorimotor asymmetries in dynamic coordination might explain limb choices. We discuss the implications of these results for theories of action selection, models of handedness, and models of neural lateralization.

Handedness is most often measured by questionnaires that assess an individual’s preference for using a particular hand to perform a variety of tasks. While such assessments have proved reliable, they do not address the underlying neurobehavioral processes that give rise to the choice of which hand to use. Recent research has indicated that handedness is associated with hemispheric specializations for different aspects of sensorimotor performance. We now hypothesize that an individual’s choice of which hand to use for a given task should result from an interaction between these underlying neurobehavioral asymmetries with task conditions. We test this hypothesis by manipulating two factors in targeted reaching movements: (1) region of workspace and (2) visual feedback conditions. The first manipulation modified the geometric and dynamic requirements of the task for each arm, whereas the second modified the sensorimotor performance asymmetries, an effect predicted by previous literature. We expected that arm choice would be reflected by an interaction between these factors. Our results indicated that removing visual feedback both improved the relative performance of the non-dominant arm and increased the choice to use this arm for targets near midline, an effect that was enhanced for targets requiring larger movement amplitudes. We explain these findings in the context of the dynamic dominance hypothesis of handedness and discuss their implications for the link between hemispheric asymmetries in neural control and hand preference.

Movement of the hand in three dimensional space is primarily controlled by the orientation of the shoulder and elbow complexes. Due to discrepancies in proprioceptive acuity, overlap in motor cortex representation and grossly different anatomies between these joints, we hypothesized that there would be differences in the accuracy of aimed movements between the two joints. Fifteen healthy young adults were tested under four conditions - shoulder motion with the elbow constrained and unconstrained, and elbow motion with the shoulder constrained and unconstrained. End point target locations for each joint were set to coincide with joint excursions of 10, 20 or 30 degrees of either the shoulder or elbow joint. Targets were presented in a virtual reality environment. For the constrained condition, there were no significant differences in angular errors between the two joints, suggesting that the central nervous system represents linked segment models of the limb in planning and controlling movements. For the unconstrained condition, although angle errors were higher, hand position errors remained the same as those of the constrained trials. These results support the idea that the CNS utilizes abundant degrees of freedom to compensate for the potentially different contributions to end-point errors introduced by each joint.

Our previous studies of interlimb asymmetries during reaching movements have given rise to the dynamic-dominance hypothesis of motor lateralization. This hypothesis proposes that dominant arm control has become optimized for efficient intersegmental coordination, which is often associated with straight and smooth hand-paths, while non-dominant arm control has become optimized for controlling steady-state posture, which has been associated with greater final position accuracy when movements are mechanically perturbed, and often during movements made in the absence of visual feedback. The basis for this model of motor lateralization was derived from studies conducted in right-handed subjects. We now ask whether left-handers show similar proficiencies in coordinating reaching movements. We recruited right- and left-handers (20 per group) to perform reaching movements to three targets, in which intersegmental coordination requirements varied systematically. Our results showed that the dominant arm of both left- and right-handers were well coordinated, as reflected by fairly straight hand-paths and low errors in initial direction. Consistent with our previous studies, the non-dominant arm of right-handers showed substantially greater curvature and large errors in initial direction, most notably to targets that elicited higher intersegmental interactions. While the right, non-dominant, hand-paths of left-handers were slightly more curved than those of the dominant arm, they were also substantially more accurate and better coordinated than the non-dominant arm of right-handers. Our results indicate a similar pattern, but reduced lateralization for intersegmental coordination in left-handers. These findings suggest that left-handers develop more coordinated control of their non-dominant arms than right-handers, possibly due to environmental pressure for right-handed manipulations.

1. We analyzed the performance of a simple pantomimed gesture in 2 patients with large-fiber sensory neuropathy and 11 control subjects to determine how proprioceptive deafferentation disrupts unconstrained multijoint movements. Both patients had near-total loss of joint position, vibration, and discriminative touch sensation in the upper extremities. Muscle strength remained intact. 2. Subjects performed a gesture similar to slicing a loaf of bread. In this gesture, the hand first moves outward from the body, reverses direction sharply, and then moves back toward the body. Accurate performance requires precise coordination between the shoulder and elbow joints during movement reversals. Movements were performed under two conditions: with eyes open and with eyes closed. Three dimensional shoulder, elbow, wrist, and hand trajectories were recorded on a WATSMART system. 3. When control subjects performed the gesture with their eyes closed, their wrist trajectories were relatively straight and individual cycles of motion were planar. Movements reversed direction sharply, such that outward and inward portions of the wrist path were closely aligned. Corresponding to this spatial profile, the reversals in movement direction at the shoulder joint, from flexion to extension, and at the elbow joint, from extension to flexion, were synchronous. 4. In contrast, when deafferented patients performed the gesture with their eyes closed, their wrist trajectories were highly curved and individual cycles were severely nonplanar. The wrist paths showed a characteristic anomaly during the reversal in movement direction, when elbow joint movement became transiently locked. Correspondingly, the movement reversals at the shoulder and elbow joints were severely temporally decoupled. 5. When patients were able to view their limbs during performance of this gesture there was significant improvement in the linearity and planarity of movements. However, the patients remained unable to synchronize the movements at the shoulder and elbow joints to produce spatially precise wrist paths. 6. We conclude that loss of proprioception disrupts interjoint coordination and discuss the hypothesis that this interjoint coordination deficit results from a failure to control the interaction forces that arise between limb segments during multijoint movements.

While cerebral lateralization has previously been well documented for many neurobehavioral functions, recent research has shown that as people age, formerly lateralized processes recruit more symmetric patterns of neural activity. Such findings provide the foundation for the model of hemispheric asymmetry reduction in older adults, or “HAROLD” [4] . Previous studies that have measured reaction time and movement time have suggested that aging does not affect manual asymmetries. However, whether these findings can be extended to kinematic variables associated with motor coordination remains largely unknown. The purpose of the current study is to determine whether asymmetries in intralimb coordination are also reduced during the aging process. We examined multidirectional reaching in two different right handed age groups, a younger group from 20 to 40 years of age, and an older group, from 60 to 80 years of age. Measures of final position accuracy, precision, and trajectory linearity showed robust asymmetries between the left and right arm groups of young adults. However, the trajectories and accuracies of the older subjects were symmetric, such that our dependent measures were not significantly different between the right and left arm groups. Our findings extend the HAROLD model to motor behavior, suggesting that aging results in decrements in motor lateralization.

Bilateral interference, referring to the tendency of movements of one arm to disrupt the intended movements made simultaneously with the other arm, is often observed in a task that involves differential planning of each arm movement during sensorimotor adaptation. In the present study, we examined two questions: 1) how does the compatibility between visuomotor adaptation tasks performed with both arms affect bilateral interference during bimanual performance? and 2) how do variations in bilateral interference affect transfer of visuomotor adaptation between bilateral and unilateral conditions? To examine these questions, we manipulated visuomotor compatibility using two kinematic variables (direction of required hand motion, direction of an imposed visual rotation). Experiment 1 consisted of two conditions in which the direction of visual rotations for both arms was either in the same or opposing directions, whereas the target direction for both arms was always the same. In experiment 2, we examined the pattern of generalization between the bilateral and unilateral conditions when both the target and rotation directions were opposing between the arms. In both experiments, subjects first adapted to a 30° visual rotation with one arm (preunilateral), then with both arms (bilateral), and finally with the arm that was not used in the first session (postunilateral). Our results show that bilateral interference was smallest when both variables were the same between the arms. Our data also show extensive transfer of visuomotor adaptation between bilateral and unilateral conditions, regardless of degree of bilateral interference.

A long history of behavioral and physiological research has suggested that bilateral coordination invokes unique neural processes that are not involved in unilateral movements. This hypothesis predicts that motor learning should show limited transfer between unilateral and bilateral conditions, which is consistent with a recent finding that indicated partial, but not complete, transfer of learning between the two conditions. However, during learning of new motor skills, transformations must also be made between visual and proprioceptive coordinate systems, a process that may occur upstream to the processes that differentiate bilateral from unilateral movements. We now investigate whether visuomotor adaptations are shared between unilateral and bilateral movement conditions. Our results indicate substantial transfer from bilateral to subsequent unilateral conditions for both arms. Interestingly, whereas the nondominant arm never showed complete adaptation to visual rotation under bilateral conditions, this interference, or lack of improvement, in bilateral performance did not disturb the visuomotor adaptation process or transfer, as reflected by superb unilateral performances immediately following the bilateral conditions. These findings unambiguously indicate that visuomotor adaptation can extensively generalize between bilateral and unilateral conditions, thus suggesting a substantial overlap in the neural processes underlying visuomotor transformations between the two movement conditions. Our findings provide support for a two-stage model of motor planning, in which the visuomotor transformation process precedes the processes that convert the visuomotor plan into effector-specific commands that incorporate bilateral synergies and that result in the forces that determine motion.

Previous studies have demonstrated that following stroke, motor impairment can occur ipsilateral to the lesion. Such impairments have provided insight into the contributions of each hemisphere to movement control, showing that left and right hemisphere damage produce different effects on movement: Left hemisphere damage produces deficits in specifying features of movement trajectory, while right hemisphere damage produces deficits in achieving an accurate and stable final position. We now propose that left and right hemisphere damage should also produce different deficits in the adaptation of trajectory and position. To test this idea, we examined adaptation to visuomotor rotations in the ipsilesional arms of hemiparetic stroke patients with left (LHD) and right hemisphere damage (RHD). We found that LHD interfered with adaptation of initial direction, but not with the ability to adapt the final position of the limb. In contrast, RHD interfered with online corrections to the final position during the course of adaptation. These findings support our hypothesis that the control of trajectory and steady-state position may be lateralized to the left and right hemispheres, respectively.

Previous studies have demonstrated that following unilateral stroke, motor impairment occurs both contralateral, as well as ipsilateral, to the lesion. Although ipsilesional impairments can be functionally limiting, they can also provide important insight into the role of the ipsilateral hemisphere in controlling movement and the lateralization of specific motor control mechanisms, given that unilateral arm movements are thought to recruit processes in each hemisphere. The purpose of this study was to examine whether left and right hemisphere damage following stroke produces different ipsilesional deficits, and whether our dynamic dominance model of motor lateralization can predict such deficits. Specifically, the dynamic dominance model attributes control of multijoint dynamics to the left hemisphere, and control of steady-state position to the right hemisphere. Chronic stroke patients with either left or right hemisphere damage (LHD or RHD) used their ipsilesional arm, and the control subjects used either their left or right arm (LHC or RHC), to perform targeted reaching movements in different directions within the workspace ipsilateral to their reaching arm. We found that the LHD group showed deficits in controlling the arm's trajectory due to impaired multijoint coordination, but no deficits in achieving accurate final positions. In contrast, the RHD group showed deficits in final position accuracy but not in the ability to coordinate multiple joints during movement, thereby providing additional evidence for the hemisphere-specific nature of motor deficits. Furthermore, while both the LHD and RHD groups were functionally impaired to the same degree on the Jebsen Hand Function Test (JHFT), our results suggest that the underlying mechanisms for such impairment may be hemisphere-dependent.

Visuomotor adaptation is mediated by errors between intended and sensory-detected arm positions. However, it is not clear whether visual-based errors that are shown during the course of motion lead to qualitatively different or more efficient adaptation than errors shown after movement. For instance, continuous visual feedback mediates online error corrections, which may facilitate or inhibit the adaptation process. We addressed this question by manipulating the timing of visual error information and task instructions during a visuomotor adaptation task. Subjects were exposed to a visuomotor rotation, during which they received continuous visual feedback (CF) of hand position with instructions to correct or not correct online errors, or knowledge-of-results (KR), provided as a static hand-path at the end of each trial. Our results showed that all groups improved performance with practice, and that online error corrections were inconsequential to the adaptation process. However, in contrast to the CF groups, the KR group showed relatively small reductions in mean error with practice, increased inter-trial variability during rotation exposure, and more limited generalization across target distances and workspace. Further, although the KR group showed improved performance with practice, after-effects were minimal when the rotation was removed. These findings suggest that simultaneous visual and proprioceptive information is critical in altering neural representations of visuomotor maps, although delayed error information may elicit compensatory strategies to offset perturbations.

We have recently shown ipsilateral dynamic deficits in trajectory control are present in left hemisphere damaged (LHD) patients with paresis, as evidenced by impaired modulation of torque amplitude as response amplitude increases. The purpose of the current study is to determine if these ipsilateral deficits are more common with contralateral hemiparesis and greater damage to the motor system, as evidenced by structural imaging. Three groups of right-handed subjects (healthy controls, LHD stroke patients with and without upper extremity paresis) performed single-joint elbow movements of varying amplitudes with their left arm in the left hemispace. Only the paretic group demonstrated dynamic deficits characterized by decreased modulation of peak torque (reflected by peak acceleration changes) as response amplitude increased. These results could not be attributed to lesion volume or peak velocity as neither variable differed across the groups. However, the paretic group had damage to a larger number of areas within the motor system than the non-paretic group suggesting that such damage increases the probability of ipsilesional deficits in dynamic control for modulating torque amplitude after left hemisphere damage.

The purpose of this study was to examine the mechanisms underlying control of distance during multijoint movements in different directions. The findings revealed 2 sequential muscle torque impulses, which correlated with 2 events in the hand acceleration profile. These 2 events occurred prior to peak velocity, characterizing control in the initial acceleration phase of motion. The contribution of shoulder and elbow joint torque to each event varied with movement direction. However, regardless of direction, these 2 torque events appeared to be functionally distinguishable: a preplanned initiation event was responsible for the initial hand acceleration, whereas a 2nd modulation event adjusted acceleration in compensation for variations in acceleration. Thus, the findings support the idea that control of distance during multijoint movement occurs through sequential control mechanisms.