Search

Previous research has demonstrated hemisphere-specific motor deficits in ipsilesional and contralesional unimanual movements in patients with hemiparetic stroke due to MCA infarct. Due to the importance of bilateral motor actions on activities of daily living, we now examine how bilateral coordination may be differentially affected by right or left hemisphere stroke. To avoid the caveat of simply adding unimanual deficits in assessing bimanual coordination, we designed a unique task that requires spatiotemporal coordination features that do not exist in unimanual movements. Participants with unilateral left (LHD) or right hemisphere damage (RHD) and age-matched controls moved a virtual rectangle (bar) from a midline start position to a midline target. Movement along the long axis of the bar was redundant to the task, such that the bar remained in the center of and parallel to an imaginary line connecting each hand. Thus, to maintain midline position of the bar, movements of one hand closer to or further away from the bar midline required simultaneous, but oppositely directed displacements with the other hand. Our findings indicate that left (LHD), but not right (RHD) hemisphere-damaged patients showed poor interlimb coordination, reflected by significantly lower correlations between displacements of each hand along the bar axis. These left hemisphere-specific deficits were only apparent prior to peak velocity, likely reflecting predictive control of interlimb coordination. In contrast, the RHD group bilateral coordination was not significantly different than that of the control group. We conclude that predictive mechanisms that govern bilateral coordination are dependent on left hemisphere mechanisms. These findings indicate that assessment and training in cooperative bimanual tasks should be considered as part of an intervention framework for post-stroke physical rehabilitation.

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.

Loss of proprioception has been shown to produce deficits in intralimb coordination and in the ability to stabilize limb posture in the absence of visual feedback. However, the role of proprioceptive signals in the feedforward and feedback control of interlimb coordination remains unclear. To address this issue, we examined bimanual coordination in a deafferented participant (DP) with large-fiber sensory neuropathy, which resulted in the loss of proprioception and touch in both arms, and in age-matched control participants. The task required participants to move a single virtual bar with both hands to a rectangular target with horizontal orientation. The participants received visual feedback of the virtual bar, but not of the hand positions along the bar-axis. Although the task required symmetrical movement between the arms, there were significant differences in the trajectories of the dominant and non-dominant hands in the deafferented participant, and thus more final errors and impaired coordination compared to controls. Deafferentation was also associated with an asymmetric deficit in stabilizing the hand at the end of motion, where the dominant arm showed more drift than the non-dominant arm. While the findings with DP may reflect a unique adaptation to deafferentation, they suggest that 1) Bilateral coordination depends on proprioceptive feedback, and 2) Postural stability at the end of motion can be specified through feedforward mechanisms, in the absence of proprioceptive feedback, but this process appears to be asymmetric, with better stability in the non-dominant arm.

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.

Typical upper limb-mediated activities of daily living involve coordination of both arms, often requiring distributed contributions to mechanically coupled tasks, such as stabilizing a loaf of bread with one hand while slicing with the other. We sought to examine whether mild paresis in one arm results in deficits in performance on a bilateral mechanically coupled task. We designed a virtual reality-based task requiring one hand to stabilize against a spring load that varies with displacement of the other arm. We recruited 15 chronic stroke survivors with mild hemiparesis and 7 age-matched neurologically intact adults. We found that stroke survivors produced less linear reaching movements and larger initial direction errors compared to controls (p &lt, 0.05), and that contralesional hand performance was less linear than that of ipsilesional hand. We found a hand × group interaction (p &lt, 0.05) for peak acceleration of the stabilizing hand, such that the dominant right hand of controls stabilized less effectively than the nondominant left hand while stroke survivors showed no differences between the hands. Our results indicate that chronic stroke survivors with mild hemiparesis show significant deficits in reaching aspects of bilateral coordination, but no deficits in stabilizing against a movement-dependent spring load in this task.

Speed accuracy trade-off, the inverse relationship between movement speed and task accuracy, is a ubiquitous feature of skilled motor performance. Many previous studies have focused on the dominant arm, unimanual performance in both simple tasks, such as target reaching, and complex tasks, such as overarm throwing. However, while handedness is a prominent feature of human motor performance, the effect of limb dominance on speed-accuracy relationships is not well-understood. Based on previous research, we hypothesize that dominant arm skilled performance should depend on visual information and prior task experience, and that the non-dominant arm should show greater skill when no visual information nor prior task information is available. Forty right-handed young adults reached to 32 randomly presented targets across a virtual reality workspace with either the left or the right arm. Half of the participants received no visual feedback about hand position throughout each reach. Sensory information and task experience were lowest during the first cycle of exposure (32 reaches) in the no-vision condition, in which visual information about motion was not available. Under this condition, we found that the left arm group showed greater skill, measured in terms of position error normalized to speed, and by error variability. However, as task experience and sensory information increased, the right arm group showed substantial improvements in speed-accuracy relations, while the left arm group maintained, but did not improve, speed-accuracy relations throughout the task. These differences in performance between dominant and non-dominant arm groups during the separate stages of the task are consistent with complimentary models of lateralization, which propose different proficiencies of each hemisphere for different features of control. Our results are incompatible with global dominance models of handedness that propose dominant arm advantages under all performance conditions.

Proprioception provides crucial information necessary for determining limb position and movement, and plausibly also for updating internal models that might underlie the control of movement and posture. Seminal studies of upper-limb movements in individuals living with chronic, large fiber deafferentation have provided evidence for the role of proprioceptive information in the hypothetical formation and maintenance of internal models to produce accurate motor commands. Vision also contributes to sensorimotor functions but cannot fully compensate for proprioceptive deficits. More recent work has shown that posture and movement control processes are lateralized in the brain, and that proprioception plays a fundamental role in coordinating the contributions of these processes to the control of goal-directed actions. In fact, the behavior of each limb in a deafferented individual resembles the action of a controller in isolation. Proprioception, thus, provides state estimates necessary for the nervous system to efficiently coordinate multiple motor control processes.

The role of proprioceptive feedback on motor lateralization remains unclear. We asked whether motor lateralization is dependent on proprioceptive feedback by examining a rare case of proprioceptive deafferentation (GL). Motor lateralization is thought to arise from asymmetries in neural organization, particularly at the cortical level. For example, we have previously provided evidence that the left hemisphere mediates optimal motor control that allows execution of smooth and efficient arm trajectories, while the right hemisphere mediates impedance control that can achieve stable and accurate final arm postures. The role of proprioception in both of these processes has previously been demonstrated empirically, bringing into question whether loss of proprioception will disrupt lateralization of motor performance. In this study, we assessed whether the loss of online sensory information produces deficits in integrating specific control contributions from each hemisphere by using a reaching task to examine upper limb kinematics in GL and five age-matched controls. Behavioral findings revealed differential deficits in the control of the left and right hands in GL and performance deficits in each of GL’s hands compared with controls. Computational simulations can explain the behavioral results as a disruption in the integration of postural and trajectory control mechanisms when no somatosensory information is available. This rare case of proprioceptive deafferentation provides insights into developing a more accurate understanding of handedness that emphasizes the role of proprioception in both predictive and feedback control mechanisms. NEW & NOTEWORTHY The role of proprioceptive feedback on the lateralization of motor control mechanisms is unclear. We examined upper limb kinematics in a rare case of peripheral deafferentation to determine the role of sensory information in integrating motor control mechanisms from each hemisphere. Our empirical findings and computational simulations showed that the loss of somatosensory information results in an impaired integration of control mechanisms, thus providing support for a complementary dominance hypothesis of handedness.

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.

Successful bimanual coordination is accomplished by overcoming a variety of cognitive, perceptual and neuromotor constraints, e.g. higher-order representation of task goals, visual perceptual demands, attention demands, task demands (i.e., speed, accuracy) and sensorimotor integration. Sensorimotor interference in planning, executing and correcting bilateral movements especially arise when the hands are required to accomplish two independent or disparate goals. In this study, we describe the experimental paradigm to study sensorimotor interference during performance of a planar reaching task, in which the experimental condition consists of the two hands moving to two visually cued targets at separate distances (spatially asymmetric). Whereas the control conditions consisted of same-size movements performed unimanually with each limb and bimanually to symmetric targets. The paradigm is a modification of a previously conceptualized model task paradigm (e.g. 1-5) to study interference in discrete bilateral movements, wherein the two limbs are tasked with accomplishing asymmetric movement goals. However, our study paradigm involved important modifications to task design such as absence of online visual feedback (so as to test fairly rapid preprogrammed movements) and task instructions which emphasized speed and accuracy but not interlimb synchrony. The study aims: 1) to characterize sensorimotor interference in discrete bilateral reaching movements in young adults, and subsequently, 2) to determine the influence of the side of stroke on such sensorimotor interference. The experimental paradigm was conducted using the KineReach kinematic data collection system and accompanying software (Sainburg, Pennsylvania State University). MATLAB code to generate session and target files for this experiment are included in this protocol. Details of data processing and analysis will be published in the primary papers and code will be made available thereafter. References: 1. Kelso (1979) 2. Marteniuk (1984) 3. Swinnen (1991) 4. Diedrichsen (2006) 5. Blich (2011)

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.

We tested finger force interdependence and multifinger force-stabilizing synergies in a patient with large-fiber peripheral neuropathy (“deafferented person”). The subject performed a range of tasks involving accurate force production with one finger and with four fingers. In one-finger tasks, nontask fingers showed unintentional force production (enslaving) with an atypical pattern: very large indices for the lateral (index and little) fingers and relatively small indices for the central (middle and ring) fingers. Indices of multifinger synergies stabilizing total force and of anticipatory synergy adjustments in preparation to quick force pulses were similar to those in age-matched control females. During constant force production, removing visual feedback led to a slow force drift to lower values (by ~25% over 15 s). The results support the idea of a neural origin of enslaving and suggest that the patterns observed in the deafferented person were reorganized based on everyday manipulation tasks. The lack of significant changes in the synergy index shows that synergic control can be organized in the absence of somatosensory feedback. We discuss the control of the hand in deafferented persons within the α-model of the equilibrium-point hypothesis and suggest that force drift results from an unintentional drift of the control variables to muscles toward zero values. NEW & NOTEWORTHY We demonstrate atypical patterns of finger enslaving and unchanged force-stabilizing synergies in a person with large-fiber peripheral neuropathy. The results speak strongly in favor of central origin of enslaving and its reorganization based on everyday manipulation tasks. The data show that synergic control can be implemented in the absence of somatosensory feedback. We discuss the control of the hand in deafferented persons within the α-model of the equilibrium-point hypothesis.

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.

The target article (Smeets, Oostwoud Wijdenes, & Brenner, 2016) proposes that short latency responses to changes in target location during reaching reflect an unconscious, continuous, and incremental minimization of the distance between the hand and the target, which does not require detection of the change in target location. We, instead, propose that short-latency visuomotor responses invoke reflex- or startle-like mechanisms, an idea supported by evidence that such responses are both automatic and resistant to cognitive influences. In addition, the target article fails to address the biological underpinnings for the range of response latencies reported across the literature, including the circuits that might underlie the proposed sensorimotor loops. When considering the range of latencies reported in the literature, we propose that mechanisms grounded in neurophysiology should be more informative than the simple information processing perspective adopted by the target article.

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.

Previous research suggests that interlimb differences in coordination associated with handedness might result from specialized control mechanisms that are subserved by different cerebral hemispheres. Based largely on the results of horizontal plane reaching studies, we have proposed that the hemisphere contralateral to the dominant arm is specialized for predictive control of limb dynamics, while the non-dominant hemisphere is specialized for controlling limb impedance. The current study explores interlimb differences in control of 3-D unsupported reaching movements. While the task was presented in the horizontal plane, participant's arms were unsupported and free to move within a range of the vertical axis, which was redundant to the task plane. Results indicated significant dominant arm advantages for both initial direction accuracy and final position accuracy. The dominant arm showed greater excursion along a redundant axis that was perpendicular to the task, and parallel to gravitational forces. In contrast, the non-dominant arm better impeded motion out of the task-plane. Nevertheless, non-dominant arm task errors varied substantially more with shoulder rotation excursion than did dominant arm task errors. These findings suggest that the dominant arm controller was able to take advantage of the redundant degrees of freedom of the task, while non-dominant task errors appeared enslaved to motion along the redundant axis. These findings are consistent with a dominant controller that is specialized for intersegmental coordination, and a non-dominant controller that is specialized for impedance control. However, the findings are inconsistent with previously documented conclusions from planar tasks, in which non-dominant control leads to greater final position accuracy.

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.

Background. Previous research has shown that during simulated activities of daily living, right-handed stroke patients use their contralesional arm more after left- than right-hemisphere stroke. These findings were attributed to a hand preference effect. However, these decisions about when to use the contralesional arm may be modulated by where in the work space the task is performed, a factor that could be used in physical rehabilitation to influence recovery by decreasing learned nonuse. Objective. To examine how target location and side of stroke influences arm selection choices for simple reaching movements. Methods. A total of 14 right-handed stroke patients (7 with left-hemisphere and 7 with right-hemisphere damage [RHD]), with similar degrees of hemiparesis (Fugl-Meyer motor score), and 16 right-handed controls participated in this experiment. In a pseudorandom fashion, 32 targets were presented throughout the reachable horizontal plane work space, and the participants were asked to select 1 hand to reach the target on each trial. Results. The group with left-hemisphere damage chose their contralesional arm significantly more often than the group with RHD. Patients with RHD also chose their left (contralesional) arm significantly less often than the control group. However, these patterns of choice were most pronounced in the center of the workspace. Conclusion. Both the side of hemisphere damage and work space location played a significant role in the choice of whether to use the contralesional arm for reaching. These findings have implications for structuring rehabilitation for unilateral stroke patients.

Integration of research in the fields of neural control of movement and biomechanics (collectively referred to as movement science) with the field of human occupation directly benefits both areas of study. Specifically, incorporating many of the quantitative scientific methods and analyses employed in movement science can help accelerate the development of rehabilitation-relevant research in occupational therapy (OT) and occupational science (OS). Reciprocally, OT and OS, which focus on the performance of everyday activities (occupations) to promote health and well-being, provide theoretical frameworks to guide research on the performance of actions in the context of social, psychological, and environmental factors. Given both fields' mutual interest in the study of movement as it relates to health and disease, the authors posit that combining OS and OT theories and principles with the theories and methods in movement science may lead to new, impactful, and clinically relevant knowledge. The first step is to ensure that individuals with OS or OT backgrounds are academically prepared to pursue advanced study in movement science. In this article, the authors propose 2 strategies to address this need.

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.

Previous research has suggested distinct predictive and reactive control mechanisms for bimanual movements compared with unimanual motion. Recent studies have extended these findings by demonstrating that movement corrections during bimanual movements might differ depending on whether or not the task is shared between the arms. We hypothesized that corrective responses during shared bimanual tasks recruit bilateral rapid feedback mechanisms such as reflexes. We tested this hypothesis by perturbing one arm as subjects performed uni- and bimanual movements. Movements were made in a virtual-reality environment in which hand position was displayed as a cursor on a screen. During bimanual motion, we provided cursor feedback either independently for each arm (independent-cursor) or such that one cursor was placed at the average location between the arms (shared-cursor). On random trials, we applied a 40 N force pulse to the right arm 100 ms after movement onset. Our results show that while reflex responses were rapidly elicited in the perturbed arm, electromyographic activity remained close to baseline levels in the unperturbed arm during the independent-cursor trials. In contrast, when the cursor was shared between the arms, reflex responses were reduced in the perturbed arm and were rapidly elicited in the unperturbed arm. Our results thus suggest that when both arms contribute to achieving the task goal, reflex responses are bilaterally elicited in response to unilateral perturbations. These results agree with and extend recent suggestions that bimanual feedback control might be modified depending on task context.

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.

Research into the neural control of movement has elucidated important principles that can provide guidelines to rehabilitation professionals for enhancing recovery of motor function in stroke patients. In this chapter, we elaborate principles that have been derived from research on neural control of movement, including optimal control, impedance control, motor lateralization, and principles of motor learning. Research on optimal control has indicated that two major categories of cost contribute to motor planning: explicit task-level costs, such as movement accuracy and speed, and implicit costs, such as energy and movement variability. Impedance control refers to neural mechanisms that modulate rapid sensorimotor circuits, such as reflexes, in order to impede perturbations that cannot be anticipated prior to movement. Research on motor lateralization has indicated that different aspects of motor control have been specialized to the two cerebral hemispheres. This organization leads to hemisphere-specific motor deficits in both the ipsilesional and contralesional arms of stroke patients. Ipsilesional deficits increase with severity of contralesional impairment level and have a substantial effect on functional independence. Finally, motor learning research has indicated that different neural mechanisms underlie different aspects of motor learning, such as adaptation vs skill learning, and that learning different aspects of tasks can generalize across different coordinates. In this chapter, we discuss the neurobiological basis of these principles and elaborate the implications for designing and implementing occupational and physical therapy treatment for movement deficits in stroke patients.

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.

We present a model of motor lateralization, based in control theory and supported by studies of brain lesions in stroke patients. According to this dynamic dominance model, the hemisphere contralateral to the dominant arm is specialized for predictive control processes that account for the energetics and dynamics of movements, but that depend on the predictability and consistency of the environment. The nondominant system is specialized for impedance control processes that can stabilize performance and reduce errors in the face of unexpected environmental conditions. These complimentary processes across the hemispheres are normally recruited during the use of each arm, but the function of each hemisphere confers its control advantages to the contralateral arm. This scheme is consistent with the work of Rogers and colleagues, who have elaborated a model of brain lateralization that spans a large range of the vertebrate evolutionary spectrum. The complimentary contribution of both brain hemispheres to the control of each arm might explain the greater behavioral symmetry of left-handers, as well as athletes of racquet sports and fencing. In fact, this same phenomenon could account for the slightly higher percentages of left-handers in these sports than the general population.

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.