Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 156, Issue 1, pp 27–38 | Cite as

Bimanual coordination: constraints imposed by the relative timing of homologous muscle activation

  • Yong Li
  • Oron Levin
  • Richard G. Carson
  • Stephan P. Swinnen
Research Article

Abstract

It has often been supposed that patterns of rhythmic bimanual coordination in which homologous muscles are engaged simultaneously, are performed in a more stable manner than those in which the same muscles are activated in an alternating fashion. In order to assess the efficacy of this constraint, the present study investigated the effect of forearm posture (prone or supine) on bimanual abduction-adduction movements of the wrist in isodirectional and non-isodirectional modes of coordination. Irrespective of forearm posture, non-isodirectional coordination was observed to be more stable than isodirectional coordination. In the latter condition, there was a more severe deterioration of coordination accuracy/stability as a function of cycling frequency than in the former condition. With elevations in cycling frequency, the performers recruited extra mechanical degrees of freedom, principally via flexion-extension of the wrist, which gave rise to increasing motion in the vertical plane. The increases in movement amplitude in the vertical plane were accompanied by decreasing amplitude in the horizontal plane. In agreement with previous studies, the present findings confirm that the relative timing of homologous muscle activation acts as a principal constraint upon the stability of interlimb coordination. Furthermore, it is argued that the use of manipulations of limb posture to investigate the role of other classes of constraint (e.g. perceptual) should be approached with caution because such manipulations affect the mapping between muscle activation patterns, movement dynamics and kinematics.

Keywords

Hand posture Bimanual coordination Cycling frequency Constraints Symmetry principles Interlimb Visual perception 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Yong Li was supported by an IRO-scholarship of K.U. Leuven and Richard Carson by a visiting fellowship from the Research Fund of K.U. Leuven (F/01/081). Additional support for the present study was provided through a grant from the Research Council of K.U. Leuven (Contract No. OT/99/39) and the Fund for Scientific Research in Flanders (Project G.0285.98 & G.0460.04) awarded to S. Swinnen. Requests for reprints should be sent to S.P. Swinnen, Motor Control Laboratory, Department of Kinesiology, K.U. Leuven, Tervuursevest 101, 3001 Leuven, Belgium.

References

  1. Batschelet E (1965) Statistical methods for the analysis of problems in animal orientation and certain biological rhythms. American Institute of Biological Sciences, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  2. Bingham GP, Schmidt RC, Zaal FT (1999) Visual perception of the relative phasing of human limb movements. Percept Psychophys 61:246–258PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bogaerts H, Buekers M, Zaal F, Swinnen SP (2003a) When visuo-motor incongruence aids motor performance: the effect of perceiving motion structures during transformed visual feedback on bimanual coordination. Behav Brain Res 138:45–57CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bogaerts H, Wagemans J, Meulenbroek R, Van Den Bergh O, Swinnen SP (2003b) Bimanual production of triangular drawing patterns: exploring symmetry constraints in perception and action. (submitted)Google Scholar
  5. Byblow WD, Carson RG, Goodman D (1994) Expressions of asymmetries and anchoring in bimanual coordination. Hum Mov Sci 13:3–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Byblow WD, Chua R, Bysout-Young DF, Summers JJ (1999) Stabilisation of bimanual coordination through visual coupling. Hum Mov Sci 18:281–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carson RG (in press) Governing coordination: why do muscles matter? In: VK Jirsa, JAS Kelso (eds) Coordination dynamics: issues and trends. Springer-Verlag, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  8. Carson RG, Riek S (2000) Musculo-skeletal constraints on corticospinal input to upper limb motoneurones during coordinated movements. Hum Mov Sci 19:451–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carson RG, Riek S, Smethurst CJ, Lison JF, Byblow WD (2000) Neuromuscular-skeletal constraints upon the dynamics of unimanual and bimanual coordination. Exp Brain Res 131:196–214PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Carson RG, Smethurst CJ, Forner M, Meichenbaum DP, Mackey DC (2002) Role of peripheral afference during acquisition of a complex coordination task. Exp Brain Res 144:496–505CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Fink PW, Kelso JAS, Jirsa VK, de Guzman G (2000) Recruitment of degrees of freedom stabilizes coordination. J Exp Psychol Hum 26:671–692PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Kahn JI, Foster DH (1986) Horizontal-vertical structure in the visual comparison of rigidly transformed patterns. J Exp Psychol Hum 12:422–433Google Scholar
  13. Kelso JAS (1984) Phase transitions and critical behavior in human bimanual coordination. Am J Physiol 240:R1000–R1004Google Scholar
  14. Kosslyn SM, Ganis G, Thompson WL (2001) Neural foundations of imagery. Nat Rev Neurosci 2:635–642CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Lee TD, Swinnen SP, Verschueren S (1995) Relative phase alterations during bimanual skill acquisition. J Motor Behav 27:263–274Google Scholar
  16. Lee TD, Almeida QJ, Chua R (2002) Spatial constraints in bimanual coordination: influences of effector orientation. Exp Brain Res 146:205–212CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Mardia KV (1972) Statistics of directional data. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. Mechsner F, Kerzel D, Knoblich G, Prinz W (2001) Perceptual basis of bimanual coordination. Nature 414:69–73PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Mogk JP, Keir PJ (2003) The effects of posture on forearm muscle loading during gripping. Ergonomics 46:956–975CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Oldfield RC (1971) The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia 9:97–113PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Park H, Collins DR, Turvey MT (2001) Dissociation of muscular and spatial constraints on patterns of interlimb coordination. J Exp Psychol Hum 27:32–47Google Scholar
  22. Riek S, Carson RG, Byblow WD (1992) Spatial and muscular dependencies in bimanual coordination. J Hum Mov Stud 23:251–265Google Scholar
  23. Rizzolatti G, Fogassi L, Gallese V (2001) Neurophysiological mechanisms underlying the understanding and imitation of action. Nat Rev Neurosci 2:661–670CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Royer FL (1981) Detection of symmetry. J Exp Psychol Hum 7:1186–1210Google Scholar
  25. Semjen A, Summers JJ, Cattaert D (1995) Hand coordination in bimanual circle drawing. J Exp Psychol Hum 21:1139–1157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Stucchi N, Viviani P (1993) Cerebral dominance and asynchrony between bimanual two-dimensional movements. J Exp Psychol Hum 19:1200–1220PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Swinnen SP (2002) Intermanual coordination: from behavioural principles to neural-network interactions. Nat Rev Neurosci 3:350–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Swinnen SP, Jardin K, Meulenbroek R, Dounskaia N, Hofkens-Van Den Brandt M (1997a) Egocentric and allocentric constraints in the expression of patterns of interlimb coordination. J Cognit Neurosci 9:348–377Google Scholar
  29. Swinnen SP, Lee TD, Verschueren S, Serrien DJ, Bogaerts H (1997b) Interlimb coordination: learning and transfer under different feedback conditions. Hum Mov Sci 16:749–785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Swinnen SP, Jardin K, Verschueren S, Meulenbroek R, Franz L, Dounskaia N, Walter CB (1998) Exploring interlimb constraints during bimanual graphic performance: effects of muscle grouping and direction. Behav Brain Res 90:79–87PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Terrell R, Purswell J (1976) The influence of forearm and wrist orientation on static grip strength as a design criterion for hand tools. Proceedings of the 20th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors Society. Human Factors Society, Santa MonicaGoogle Scholar
  32. Wagemans J (1997) Characteristics and models of human symmetry detection. Trends Cogn Sci 1:346–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wagemans J, Van Gool L, Swinnen V, Van Horebeek J (1993) Higher-order structure in regularity detection. Vision Res 33:1067–1088CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Weigelt C, Cardoso de Oliveira S (2002) Visuomotor transformations affect bimanual coupling. Exp Brain Res 148:439–450Google Scholar
  35. Zaal FT, Bingham GP, Schmidt RC (2000) Visual perception of mean relative phase and phase variability. J Exp Psychol Hum 26:1209–1220PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Zimmer AC (1984) Foundations for the measurement of phenomenal symmetry. Gestalt Theory 6:118–157Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yong Li
    • 1
  • Oron Levin
    • 1
  • Richard G. Carson
    • 2
  • Stephan P. Swinnen
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory of Motor Control, Department of Kinesiology, FLOKKatholieke Universiteit LeuvenHeverleeBelgium
  2. 2.Perception and Motor Systems Laboratory, School of Human Movement StudiesUniversity of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations