Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 168, Issue 3, pp 450–454 | Cite as

Temporal coordination of the arms during bilateral simultaneous and sequential movements in patients with chronic hemiparesis

  • Sandy McCombe Waller
  • Michelle Harris-Love
  • Wei Liu
  • Jill Whitall
Research Note


Upper extremity (UE) hemiparesis results in decreased movement speed and impaired coordination leading to functional limitations and disability. The effects of UE hemiparesis on bilateral functional reaching have not been studied even though most activities of daily living are bilateral tasks. We examined the characteristics of bilateral simultaneous (SIM-B) and bilateral sequential paretic-lead (SEQ-P) and nonparetic-lead (SEQ-NP) functional reaching tasks at preferred and fast speeds. Sixteen patients with chronic hemiparesis completed three bilateral reaching tasks as fast as possible. A subset of eight participants attempted to complete the tasks at both preferred and fastest possible speeds. Paretic (P) and nonparetic (NP) arms were not different from each other in movement time (MT) or peak velocity in the SIM-B condition. MT and peak velocity differed between the two arms during both SEQ tasks. P MT was shorter and NP MT longer in the SIM-B task compared to SEQ-P and SEQ-NP. The P arm MT was the shortest when moving with the NP arm in a simultaneous task compared to both P and NP lead sequential movements. Despite hemiparesis, the two arms demonstrate a temporal coupling when moving simultaneously. When attempting to move at fastest speed, P arm MT time is better when reaching before or with the NP arm than when reaching after the NP arm showing coupling to the NP limb and increased speed of movement. These coupling effects support the rationale for bilateral arm training for individuals with UE hemiparesis.


Peak Velocity Movement Time Fast Speed Sequential Task Prefer Speed 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Brinkman C (1984) Supplementary motor area of the monkey’s cerebral cortex short- and long-term deficits after unilateral ablation and the effects of subsequent callosal section. J Neurosci 4:918–929PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Cauraugh J, Kim S (2002) Two coupled motor recovery protocols are better than one: electromyogram-triggered neuromuscular stimulation and bilateral movements. Stroke 6:1589–1594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cunningham C, Phillips Stoykov M, Walter C (2002) Bilateral facilitation of motor control in chronic hemiplegia. Acta Psychol 110:321–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fugl-Meyer A, Jaasko L, Leyman I, Olsson S, Steglind S (1975) The post-stroke hemiplegic patient. 1. A method for evaluation of physical performance. Scand J Rehabil Med 7:13–31PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Gazzaniga MS (1966) Interhemispheric cuing systems remaining after section of neocortical commissures in monkeys. Exp Neurol 16:28–35CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Gowland C, deBruin H, Basmajian J, Plews N, Nurcea I (1992) Agonist and antagonist activity during voluntary upper limb movement in patients with stroke. Phys Ther 72:624–633PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Kelso J, Southard D, Goodman D (1979) On the coordination of two-handed movements. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 5:229–238CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Lazarus JC (1992) Associated movement in hemiplegia: the effects of force exerted, limb usage and inhibitory training. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 73:1044–1049PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Levin M, Cirstae C, Archambault P, Son F, Roby-Brami A (1999) Impairment and Compensation of reaching in hemiparetic and cerebral palsied patients. In: Progress in Motor Control II, Penn State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  10. Mudie M, Matyas T (2000) Can simultaneous bilateral movement involve the undamaged hemisphere in reconstruction of neural networks damaged by stroke? Disabil Rehabil 22:23–37CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Rice M, Newell K (2001) Interlimb coupling in left hemiplegia because of right cerebral vascular accident. Occup Ther J Res 21:12–28Google Scholar
  12. Serrien DJ, Wiesendanger M (2000) Temporal control of a bimanual task in patients with cerebellar dysfunction. Neuropsychologia 38:558–565CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Serrien D, Wiesendanger M (2001) Dissociation of grip/load coupling during a bimanual manipulative assignment. Exp Brain Res 136:417–420CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Sommerfeld DK, Eek EU, Svensson AK, Holmqvist LW, von Arbin MH (2004) Spasticity after stroke: its occurrence and association with motor impairments and activity limitations. Stroke 35:134–139CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Tanji J, Okano K, Sato K (1988) Neuronal activity in cortical motor areas related to ipsilateral, contralateral, and bilateral digit movements of the monkey. J Neurophysiol 60:325–343PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Taub E, Wolf SW (1997) Constraint induced movement techniques to facilitate upper extremity use in stroke patients. Top Stroke Rehabil 3:38–61Google Scholar
  17. Taub E, Crago J, Uswatte G (1998) Constraint-induced movement therapy: a new approach to treatment in physical rehabilitation. Rehabil Psychol 43:152–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Whitall J, McCombe Waller S, Silver KHC, Macko RF (2000) Repetitive bilateral arm training with rhythmic auditory cueing improves motor function in chronic hemiparetic stroke. Stroke 31:2390–2395PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Wolf SW, Lecraw D, Barton L, Jan B (1989) Forced use of hemiplegic extremities to reverse the effect of learned nonuse among chronic stroke and head injured patients. Exp Neurol 104:125–132CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Wyke M (1971) The effects of brain lesions of the performance of bilateral arm movements. Neuropsychologia 9:33–42PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sandy McCombe Waller
    • 1
  • Michelle Harris-Love
    • 1
  • Wei Liu
    • 1
  • Jill Whitall
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Maryland, BaltimoreBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations