Advertisement

Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 178, Issue 4, pp 565–570 | Cite as

The dominant and nondominant arms are specialized for stabilizing different features of task performance

  • Jinsung WangEmail author
  • Robert L. Sainburg
Research Note

Abstract

We have previously proposed a model of motor lateralization, in which the two arms are differentially specialized for complementary control processes. During aimed movements, the dominant arm shows advantages for coordinating intersegmental dynamics as required for specifying trajectory speed and direction, while the nondominant arm shows advantages in controlling limb impedance, as required for accurate final position control. We now directly test this model of lateralization by comparing performance of the two arms under two different tasks: one in which reaching movement is made from one fixed starting position to three different target positions; and the other in which reaching is made from three different starting positions to one fixed target position. For the dominant arm, performance was most accurate when reaching from one fixed starting position to multiple targets. In contrast, nondominant arm performance was most accurate when reaching toward a single target from multiple start locations. These findings contradict the idea that motor lateralization reflects a global advantage of one “dominant” hemisphere/limb system. Instead, each hemisphere/limb system appears specialized for stabilizing different aspects of task performance.

Keywords

Human Hemispheric lateralization Motor control Movement representation Handedness 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by National Institutes of Health grant R01HD39311.

References

  1. Bagesteiro LB, Sainburg RL (2002) Handedness: dominant arm advantages in control of limb dynamics. J Neurophysiol 88:2408–2421PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bagesteiro LB, Sainburg RL (2003) Nondominant arm advantages in load compensation during rapid elbow joint movements. J Neurophysiol 90:1503–1513PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bhushan N, Shadmehr R (1999) Computational nature of human adaptive control during learning of reaching movements in force fields. Biol Cybern 81:39–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bizzi E, Accornero N, Chapple W, Hogan N (1982) Arm trajectory formation in monkeys. Exp Brain Res 46:139–143PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cisek P, Crammond DJ, Kalaska JF (2003) Neural activity in primary motor and dorsal premotor cortex in reaching tasks with the contralateral versus ipsilateral arm. J Neurophysiol 89:922–942PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Duff SV, Sainburg RL (2006) Lateralization of motor adaptation reveals independence in control of trajectory and steady-state position. Exp Brain Res, Epub ahead of printGoogle Scholar
  7. Evarts EV (1968) Relation of pyramidal tract activity to force exerted during voluntary movement. J Neurophysiol 31:14–27PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Fetz EE, Cheney PD, German DC (1976) Corticomotoneuronal connections of precentral cells detected by postspike averages of EMG activity in behaving monkeys. Brain Res 114:505–510PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fu QG, Suarez JI, Ebner TJ (1993) Neuronal specification of direction and distance during reaching movements in the superior precentral premotor area and primary motor cortex of monkeys. J Neurophysiol 70:2097–2116PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Geschwind N (1975) The apraxias: neural mechanisms of disorders of learned movement. Am Sci 63:188–195PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Georgopoulos AP, Kalaska JR, Caminiti R, Massey JT (1983) Interruption of motor cortical discharge subserving aimed arm movements. Exp Brain Res 49:327–340PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gordon J, Ghilardi MF, Ghez C (1994) Accuracy of planar reaching movements. I. Independence of direction and extent variability. Exp Brain Res 99:97–111PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gottlieb GL (1996) On the voluntary movement of compliant (inertial-viscoelastic) loads by parcellated control mechanisms. J Neurophysiol 76:3207–3229PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Jaric S, Corcos DM, Gottlieb GL, Ilic DB, Latash ML (1994) The effects of practice on movement distance and final position reproduction: implications for the equilibrium-point control of movements. Exp Brain Res 100:353–359PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kakei S, Hoffman DS, Strick PL (1999) Muscle and movement representations in the primary motor cortex. Science 285:2136–2139PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kakei S, Hoffman DS. Strick PL (2001) Direction of action is represented in the ventral premotor cortex. Nat Neurosci 4:1020–1025PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kawato M (1999) Internal models for motor control and trajectory planning. Curr Opin Neurobiol 9:718–727PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kelso JA, Holt KG (1980) Exploring a vibratory systems analysis of human movement production. J Neurophysiol 43:1183–1196PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Kettner RE, Schwartz AB, Georgopoulos AP (1988) Primate motor cortex and free arm movements to visual targets in three- dimensional space. III. Positional gradients and population coding of movement direction from various movement origins. J Neurosci 8:2938–2947PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Kurata K (1993) Premotor cortex of monkeys: set- and movement-related activity reflecting amplitude and direction of wrist movements. J Neurophysiol 69:187–200PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Kutas M, Donchin E (1974) Studies of squeezing: handedness, responding hand, response force, and asymmetry of readiness potential. Science 186:545–548PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lackner JR, DiZio P (1998) Adaptation in a rotating artificial gravity environment. Brain Res Brain Res Rev 28:194–202PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Latash ML (1992) Independent control of joint stiffness in the framework of the equilibrium-point hypothesis. Biol Cybern 67:377–384PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Liepmann H (1905) Die linke Hemisphäre und das Handeln. MMW Münch Med Wochenschr 49:2375–2378Google Scholar
  27. Messier J, Kalaska JF (1999) Comparison of variability of initial kinematics and endpoints of reaching movements. Exp Brain Res 125:139–352PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Messier J, Kalaska JF (2000) Covariation of primate dorsal premotor cell activity with direction and amplitude during a memorized-delay reaching task. J Neurophysiol 84: 152–165PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Oldfield RC (1971) The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia 9:97–113PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Polit A, Bizzi E (1978) Processes controlling arm movements in monkeys. Science 201:1235–1237PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sainburg RL (2002) Evidence for a dynamic-dominance hypothesis of handedness. Exp Brain Res 142:241–258PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sainburg RL, Eckhardt (2005) Optimization through lateralization: the evolution of handedness. Behav Brain Sci 28:611–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sainburg RL, Kalakanis D (2000) Differences in control of limb dynamics during dominant and nondominant arm reaching. J Neurophysiol 83:2661–2675PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Sainburg RL, Schaefer SY (2004) Interlimb differences in control of movement extent. J Neurophysiol 92:1374–1383PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sainburg RL, Wang J (2002) Interlimb transfer of visuomotor rotations: independence of direction and final position information. Exp Brain Res 145:437–447PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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
  37. Sainburg RL, Lateiner JE, Latash ML, Bagesteiro LB (2003) Effects of altering initial position on movement direction and extent. J Neurophysiol 89:401–415PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Scheidt RA, Reinkensmeyer DJ, Conditt MA, Rymer WZ, Mussa-Ivaldi FA (2000) Persistence of motor adaptation during constrained, multi-joint, arm movements. J Neurophysiol 84:853–862PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Shadmehr R, Mussa-Ivaldi FA (1994) Adaptive representation of dynamics during learning of a motor task. J Neurosci 14:3208–3224PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 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
  41. Vallortigara G, Rogers LJ (2005) Survival with an asymmetrical brain: advantages and disadvantages of cerebral lateralization. Behav Brain Sci 28: 575–89; discussion 589–633Google Scholar
  42. Vindras P, Desmurget M, Prablanc C, Viviani P (1998) Pointing errors reflect biases in the perception of the initial hand position. J Neurophysiol 79:3290–3294PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Wang J, Sainburg RL (2004) Interlimb transfer of novel inertial dynamics is asymmetrical. J Neurophysiol 92:349–360PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wang J, Sainburg RL (2005) Adaptation to visuomotor rotations remaps movement vectors, not final positions. J Neurosci 25:4024–4030PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wang J, Sainburg RL (2006) Interlimb transfer of visuomotor rotations depends on handedness. Exp Brain Res in pressGoogle Scholar
  46. Wolpert DM, Kowato M (1998) Multiple paired forward and inverse models for motor control. Neural Netw 11:1317–1329PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wolpert DM, Ghahramani Z, Jordan MI (1995) An internal model for sensorimotor integration. Science 269:1880–1882Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of KinesiologyThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations