Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 175, Issue 2, pp 223–230 | Cite as

Interlimb transfer of visuomotor rotations depends on handedness

  • Jinsung WangEmail author
  • Robert L. Sainburg
Research Article


We previously reported that opposite arm adaptation to visuomotor rotations improved the initial direction of right arm movements in right-handers, whereas it only improved the final position accuracy of their left arm movements. We now investigate the pattern of interlimb transfer following adaptation to 30° visuomotor rotations in left-handers to determine whether the direction of transfer depends on handedness. Our results indicate unambiguous transfer across the arms. In terms of final position accuracy, the direction of transfer is opposite to that observed in right-handers, such that transfer only occurred from the left to the right arm movements. Directional accuracy also showed the opposite pattern of transfer to that of right-handers: initial movement direction, calculated at peak tangential acceleration, transferred only from right to left arms. When movement direction was measured later in the movement, at peak tangential velocity, asymmetrical transfer also occurred, such that greater transfer occurred from right to left arms. However, a small, but significant influence of opposite arm adaptation also occurred for the left arm, which might reflect differences in the use of the nondominant arm between left- and right-handers. Overall, our results indicate that left-handers show a mirror-imaged pattern of interlimb transfer in visuomotor adaptation to that previously reported for right-handers. This pattern of transfer is consistent with the hypothesis that asymmetry in interlimb transfer is dependent on differential specialization of the dominant and nondominant hemisphere/limb systems for trajectory and positional control, respectively.


Visuomotor adaptation Generalization Motor learning Motor control Intermanual 



This research was supported by National Institutes of Health grants R01HD39311 and NRSA 1-F32-NS-46239-1.


  1. Bagesteiro LB, Sainburg RL (2002) Handedness: dominant arm advantages in control of limb dynamics. J Neurophysiol 88:2408–2421PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boulinguez P, Velay JL, Nougier V (2001) Manual asymmetries in reaching movement control. II: study of left-handers. Cortex 37:123–138PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown SH, Cooke JD (1981) Responses to force perturbations preceding voluntary human arm movements. Brain Res 220:350–355PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown SH, Cooke JD (1984) Initial agonist burst duration depends on movement amplitude. Exp Brain Res 55:523–527PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown SH, Cooke JD (1986) Initial agonist burst is modified by perturbations preceding movement. Brain Res 377:311–322PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bryden MP (1982) Laterality: functional asymmetry in the intact brain. Academic, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Criscimagna-Hemminger SE, Donchin O, Gazzaniga MS, Shadmehr R (2003) Learned dynamics of reaching movements generalize from dominant to nondominant arm. J Neurophysiol 89:168–176PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dassonville P, Zhu XH, Uurbil K, Kim SG, Ashe J (1997) Functional activation in motor cortex reflects the direction and the degree of handedness. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94:14015–14018Google Scholar
  9. Dizio P, Lackner JR (1995) Motor adaptation to Coriolis force perturbations of reaching movements: endpoint but not trajectory adaptation transfers to the nonexposed arm. J Neurophysiol 74:1787–1792PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Ghez C (1979) Contributions of central programs to rapid limb movement in the cat. In: AhaW VJ (ed) Integration in the nervous system. Igaku-Shoin, Tokyo, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Ghez C, Gordon J (1987) Trajectory control in targeted force impulses. I. Role of opposing muscles. Exp Brain Res 67:225–240PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gottlieb GL (1996) On the voluntary movement of compliant (inertial-viscoelastic) loads by parcellated control mechanisms. J Neurophysiol 76:3207–3229PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Haaland KY, Prestopnik JL, Knight RT, Lee RR (2004) Hemispheric asymmetries for kinematic and positional aspects of reaching. Brain 127:1145–1158PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Halsband U (1992) Left hemisphere preponderance in trajectorial learning. Neuroreport 3:397–400PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hardyck C, Petrinovich LF (1977) Left-handedness. Psychol Bull 84:385–404PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hicks RE (1975) Intrahemispheric response competition between vocal and unimanual performances in normam adult human males. J Comp Physiol Psychol 89:50–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hirayama M, Kawato M, Jordan MI (1993) The cascade neural network model and a speed-accuracy trade-off of arm movement. J Mot behav 25:162–174PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kawashima R, Matsumura M, Sadato N, Naito E, Waki A, Nakamura S, Matsunami K, Fukuda H, Yonekura Y (1998) Regional cerebral blood flow changes in human brain related to ipsilateral and contralateral complex hand movements—a PET study. Eur J Neurosci 10:2254–2260PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kim SG, Ashe J, Hendrich K, Ellermann JM, Merkle H, Ugurbil K, Georgopoulos AP (1993) Functional magnetic resonance imaging of motor cortex: hemispheric asymmetry and handedness. Science 261:615–617PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kurtzer I, Herter TM, Scott SH (2005) Random change in cortical load representation suggests distinct control of posture and movement. Nat Neurosci 8:498–504PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Kutas M, Donchin E (1974) Studies of squeezing: handedness, responding hand, response force, and asymmetry of readiness potential. Science 186:545–548PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lackner JR, Dizio P (1994) Rapid adaptation to Coriolis force perturbations of arm trajectory. J Neurophysiol 72:299–313PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Laszlo JI, Baguley RA, Bairstow PJ (1970) Bilateral transfer in tapping skill in the absence of peripheral information. J Mot Behav 2:261–271Google Scholar
  24. Macdonell RA, Shapiro BE, Chiappa KH, Helmers SL, Cros D, Day BJ, Shahani BT (1991) Hemispheric threshold differences for motor evoked potentials produced by magnetic coil stimulation. Neurology 41:1441–1444PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Malfait N, Ostry DJ (2004) Is interlimb transfer of force-field adaptation a cognitive response to the sudden introduction of load? J Neurosci 24:8084–8089PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Marzi CA, Bisiacchi P, Nicoletti R (1991) Is interhemispheric transfer of visuomotor information asymmetric? Evidence from a meta-analysis. Neuropsychologia 29:1163–1177PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Matsunami K, Hamada I (1981) Characteristics of the ipsilateral movement-related neuron in the motor cortex of the monkey. Brain Res 204:29–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Oldfield RC (1971) The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia 9:97–113PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Parlow SE, Kinsbourne M (1989) Asymmetrical transfer of training between hands: implications for interhemispheric communication in normal brain. Brain Cogn 11:98–113PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sainburg RL (2002) Evidence for a dynamic-dominance hypothesis of handedness. Exp Brain Res 142:241–258PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sainburg RL, Kalakanis D (2000) Differences in control of limb dynamics during dominant and nondominant arm reaching. J Neurophysiol 83:2661–2675PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Sainburg RL, Schaefer SY (2004) Interlimb differences in control of movement extent. J Neurophysiol 92:1374–1383PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sainburg RL, Wang J (2002) Interlimb transfer of visuomotor rotations: independence of direction and final position information. Exp Brain Res 145:437–447PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sainburg RL, Ghez C, Kalakanis D (1999) Intersegmental dynamics are controlled by sequential anticipatory, error correction, and postural mechanisms. J Neurophysiol 81:1040–1056Google Scholar
  35. Serrien DJ, Ivry RB, Swinnen SP (2006) Dynamics of hemispheric specialization and integration in the context of motor control. Nat Rev Neurosci 7:160–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Taylor HG, Heilman KM (1980) Left-hemisphere motor dominance in righthanders. Cortex 16:587–603PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Thut G, Cook ND, Regard M, Leenders KL, Halsband U, Landis T (1996) Intermanual transfer of proximal and distal motor engrams in humans. Exp Brain Res 108:321–327PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wang J, Sainburg RL (2003) Mechanisms underlying interlimb transfer of visuomotor rotations. Exp Brain Res 149:520–526PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Wang J, Sainburg RL (2004a) Interlimb transfer of novel inertial dynamics is asymmetrical. J Neurophysiol 92:349–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wang J, Sainburg RL (2004b). Limitations in interlimb transfer of visuomotor rotations. Exp Brain Res 155:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wang J, Sainburg RL (2005) Adaptation to visuomotor rotations remaps movement vectors, not final positions. J Neurosci 25:4024–4030PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wang J, Sainburg RL (2006) The symmetry of interlimb transfer depends on workspace locations. Exp Brain Res 170:464–471PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Winstein CJ, Pohl PS (1995) Effects of unilateral brain damage on the control of goal-directed hand movements. Exp Brain Res 105:163–174PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of KinesiologyThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations