Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 183, Issue 1, pp 17–25 | Cite as

Simultaneous bimanual dynamics are learned without interference

  • Lili Tcheang
  • Paul M. Bays
  • James N. Ingram
  • Daniel M. Wolpert
Research Article

Abstract

Dynamic learning in humans has been extensively studied using externally applied force fields to perturb movements of the arm. These studies have focused on unimanual learning in which a force field is applied to only one arm. Here we examine dynamic learning during bimanual movements. Specifically we examine learning of a force field in one arm when the other arm makes movements in a null field or in a force field. For both the dominant and non-dominant arms, the learning (change in performance over the exposure period) was the same regardless of whether the other arm moved in a force field, equivalent either in intrinsic or extrinsic coordinates, or moved in a null field. Moreover there were no significant differences in learning in these bimanual tasks compared to unimanual learning, when one arm experienced a force field and the other arm was at rest. Although the learning was the same, there was an overall increase in error for the non-dominant arm for all bimanual conditions compared to the unimanual condition. This increase in error was the result of bimanual movement alone and was present even in the initial training phase before any forces were introduced. We conclude that, during bimanual movements, the application of a force field to one arm neither interferes with nor facilitates simultaneous learning of a force field applied to the other arm.

Keywords

Motor learning Human studies Dynamic learning 

References

  1. Baizer JS, Kralj-Hans I, Glickstein M (1999) Cerebellar lesions and prism adaptation in macaque monkeys. J Neurophysiol 81:1960–1965PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Brashers-Krug T, Shadmehr R, Bizzi E (1996) Consolidation in human motor memory. Nature 382:252–255PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Caithness G, Osu R, Bays P, Chase H, Klassen J, Kawato M, Wolpert DM, Flanagan JR (2004) Failure to consolidate the consolidation theory of learning for sensorimotor adaptation tasks. J Neurosci 24:8662–8671PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Choe CS, Welch RB (1974) Variables affecting the intermanual transfer and decay of prism adaptation. J Exp Psychol 102:1076–1084PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Conditt MA, Gandolfo F, Mussa-Ivaldi FA (1997) The motor system does not learn the dynamics of the arm by rote memorization of past experience. J Neurophysiol 78:554–560PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Cunningham HA, Welch RB (1994) Multiple concurrent visual-motor mappings: implications for models of adaptation. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 20:987–999PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Flanagan J, Nakano E, Imamizu H, Osu R, Yoshioka T, Kawato M (1999) Composition and decomposition of internal models in motor learning under altered kinematic and dynamic environments. J Neuroscience 19:RC34Google Scholar
  9. Gandolfo F, Mussa-Ivaldi F, Bizzi E (1996) Motor learning by field approximation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 93:3843–3846PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Goodbody SJ, Wolpert DM (1998) Temporal and amplitude generalization in motor learning. J Neurophysiol 79:1825–1838PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Hamilton C (1964) Intermanual transfer of adaptation to prisms. Am J Psychol 77:457–462PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Imamizu H, Shimojo S (1995) The locus of visual-motor learning at the task or manipulator level: implications from intermanual transfer. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 21:719–733PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kelso JAS (1984) Phase transitions and critical behaviour in human interlimb coordination. Am J Physiol 240:1000–1004Google Scholar
  14. Kitazawa S, Kimura T, Uka T (1997) Prism adaptation of reaching movements: specificity for the velocity of reaching. J Neurosci 17:1481–1492PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Kording K, Fukunaga I, Howard IS, Ingram JN, Wolpert DM (2004) A neuroeconomics approach to inferring utility functions in sensorimotor control. PLoS Biol 2:e330PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Krakauer JWMP, Ghazizadeh A, Ravindran R, Shadmehr R (2006) Generalization of motor learning depends on the history of prior action. PLoS Biol 4:e316PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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
  18. Mazzoni PKJW (2006) An implicit plan overrides an explicit strategy during visuomotor adaptation. J Neurosci 26:3642–3645PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Miall RC, Jenkinson N, Kulkarni K (2004) Adaptation to rotated visual feedback: a re-examination of motor interference. Exp Brain Res 154:201–210PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nozaki D, Kurtzer I, Scott SH (2006) Limited transfer of learning between unimanual and bimanual skills within the same limb. Nat Neurosci 9:1364–1366PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Oldfield RC (1971) The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia 9:97–113PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Osu R, Hirai S, Yoshioka T, Kawato M (2004) Random presentation enables subjects to adapt to two opposing forces on the hand. Nat Neurosci 7(3):314 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sainburg RL, Wang J (2002) Interlimb transfer of visuomotor rotations: independence of direction and final position information. Exp Brain Res 145:437–447PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Shadmehr R, Moussavi ZM (2000) Spatial generalization from learning dynamics of reaching movements. J Neurosci 20:7807–7815PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Shadmehr R, Mussa-Ivaldi F (1994) Adaptive representation of dynamics during learning of a motor task. J Neurosci 14:3208–3224PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Swinnen SP, Wenderoth N (2004) Two hands, one brain: cognitive neuroscience of bimanual skill. Trends Cogn Sci 8:18–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Teixeira LA (2000) Timing and force components in bilateral transfer of learning. Brain Cogn 44:455–469PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tong C, Wolpert DM, Flanagan JR (2002) Kinematics and dynamics are not represented independently in motor working memory: evidence from an interference study. J Neurosci 22:1108–1113PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Wang J, Sainburg RL (2004) Interlimb transfer of novel inertial dynamics is asymmetrical. J Neurophysiol 92:349–360PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lili Tcheang
    • 1
  • Paul M. Bays
    • 1
  • James N. Ingram
    • 2
  • Daniel M. Wolpert
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Cognitive NeuroscienceLondonUK
  2. 2.Department of EngineeringUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations