Advertisement

Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 182, Issue 4, pp 567–577 | Cite as

Greater reliance on impedance control in the nondominant arm compared with the dominant arm when adapting to a novel dynamic environment

  • Christopher N. Schabowsky
  • Joseph M. Hidler
  • Peter S. Lum
Research Article

Abstract

This study investigated differences in adaptation to a novel dynamic environment between the dominant and nondominant arms in 16 naive, right-handed, neurologically intact subjects. Subjects held onto the handle of a robotic manipulandum and executed reaching movements within a horizontal plane following a pseudo-random sequence of targets. Curl field perturbations were imposed by the robot motors, and we compared the rate and quality of adaptation between dominant and nondominant arms. During the early phase of the adaptation time course, the rate of motor adaptation between both arms was similar, but the mean peak and figural error of the nondominant arm were significantly smaller than those of the dominant arm. Also, the nondominant limb’s aftereffects were significantly smaller than in the dominant arm. Thus, the controller of the nondominant limb appears to have relied on impedance control to a greater degree than the dominant limb when adapting to a novel dynamic environment. The results of this study imply that there are differences in dynamic adaptation between an individual’s two arms.

Keywords

Motor control Motor adaptation Handedness Impedance control Reaching movements 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to show our appreciation to Lindsay DiRomualdo, Daniela Monterrubio and Shannon O’Brien for assisting with subject recruitment, testing and analysis. We also acknowledge the Imaging Science and Information Systems (ISIS) Center at Georgetown University for providing the InMotion2 robot.

References

  1. Bagesteiro LB, Sainburg RL (2002) Handedness: Dominant arm advantages in control of limb dynamics. J Neurophysiol 88:2408–2421PubMedCrossRefGoogle 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, 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(40):8662–8671PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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 74:2174–2178Google Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Duff SV, Sainburg RL (2006) Lateralization of motor adaptation reveals independence in control of trajectory and steady-state position. Exp Brain Res Dec 15 (Epub ahead of print)Google Scholar
  7. Flanagan JR, Wing AM (1997) The role of internal models in motor planning and control: evidence from grip force adjustments during movements of hand-held loads. J Neurosci 17:1519–1528PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Flash T, Mussa-Ivaldi F (1990) Human arm stiffness characteristics during the maintenance of posture. Exp Brain Res 82(2):315–326PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Franklin DW, Milner TE (2003) Adaptive control of stiffness to stabilize hand position with large loads. Exp Brain Res 152:211–220PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Franklin DW, Osu R, Burdet E, Kawato M, Milner TE (2003) Adaptation to stable and unstable dynamics achieved by combined impedance control and inverse dynamics model. J Neurophysiol 90:3270–3282PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gomi J, Osu R (1998) Task-dependent viscoelasticity of human multijoint arm and its spatial characteristics for interaction with environments. J Neurosci 18:8965–8978PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Gomi J, Osu R (1999) Multijoint muscle regulation mechanisms examined by measured human arm stiffness and EMG signals. J Neurophysiol 81:1458–1468PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Hidler J, Nichols D, Pelliccio M, Brady K (2005) Advances in the understanding and treatment of stroke impairment using robotic devices. Top Stroke Rehabil 12(2):22–35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lum PS, Reinkensmeyer DJ, Mahoney R, Rymer WZ, Burgar CG (2002) Clinical considerations in the use of robotic devices for movement therapy following stroke. Top Stroke Rehabil 8(4):40–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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
  16. Milner TE, Franklin DW (2005) Impedance control and internal model use during the initial stage of adaptation to novel dynamics in humans. J Physiol 567:651–664PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Milner TE, Hinder MR (2006) Position information but not force information is used in adapting to changes in environmental dynamics. J Neurophysiol 96:526–534PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mussa-Ivaldi FA, Hogan N, Bizzi E (1985) Neural, mechanical, and geometric factors subserving arm posture in humans. J Neurosci 5:2732–2743PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Nozaki D, Kurtzer I, Scott SH (2006) Limited transfer of learning between unimanual, bimanual skills within the same limb. Nat Neurosci 9(11):1364–1366PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Oldfield RC (1971) The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh Inventory. Neuropsychologia 1:97–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Osu R, Burdet E, Franklin DW, Milner TE, Kawato M (2003) Different mechanisms involved in adaptation to stable and unstable dynamics. J Neurophysiol 90:3255–3269PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Parlow SE, Kingsbourne M (1989) Asymmetrical transfer of training between hands: Implications for interhemispheric communication in normal brain. Brain Cogn 11:98–113PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Patton JL, Stoykov ME, Kovic M, Mussa-Ivaldi FA (2006) Evaluation of robotic training forces that either enhance or reduce error in chronic hemiparetic stroke survivors. Exp Brain Res 168:368–383PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sainburg RL (2002) Evidence for a dynamic-dominance hypothesis of handedness. Exp Brain Res 142:241–258PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sainburg RL, Duff SV (2006) Does motor lateralization have implications for stroke rehabilitation? JRRD 43:311–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sainburg RL, Kalakanis D (2000) Differences in control of limb dynamics during dominant and nondominant arm reaching. J Neurophysiol 83:2661–2675PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Sainburg RL, Wang J (2002) Interlimb transfer of visuomotor rotations: independence of direction and final position information. Exp Brain Res 145:437–447PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Scheidt RA, Stoeckmann T (2007) Reach Adaptation and Final Position Control Amid Environmental Uncertainty Following Stroke. J Neurophysiol Jan 31 (Epub ahead of print)Google Scholar
  29. 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
  30. Scheidt RA, Dingwell J, Mussa-Ivaldi FA (2001) Learning to move amid uncertainty. J Neurophysiol 86:971–985PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Shadmehr R, Brashers-Krug T (1997) Functional stages in the formation of human long-term motor memory. J Neurosci 17:409–419PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Shadmehr R, Mussa-Ivaldi FA (1994) Adaptive representation of dynamics during learning of a motor task. J Neurosci 14:3208–3224PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Takahashi C, Reinkensmeyer D (2003) Hemiparetic stroke impairs anticipatory control of arm movement. Exp Brain Res 149:131–140PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Takahashi C, Scheidt R, Reinkensmeyer D (2001) Impedance control and internal model formation when reaching in a randomly varying dynamical environment. J Neurophysiol 86:1047–1051PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Taylor HG, Heilman KM (1980) Left-hemisphere motor dominance in righthanders. Cortex 16:587–603PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Thoroughman KA, Shadmehr R (2000) Learning of action through adaptive combination of motor primitives. Nature 407:742–746PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Volpe BT, Ferraro M, Krebs HI, Hogan N (2002) Robotics in rehabilitation treatment of patients with stroke. Curr Atheroscler Rep 4(4):270–276PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wang J, Sainburg RL (2004a) Limitations in interlimb transfer of visuomotor rotations. Exp Brain Res 155:1–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wang J, Sainburg RL (2004b) Interlimb transfer of novel inertial dynamics is asymmetrical. J Neurophysiol 92:349–360PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher N. Schabowsky
    • 1
    • 2
  • Joseph M. Hidler
    • 1
    • 2
  • Peter S. Lum
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Center for Applied Biomechanics and Rehabilitation Research (CABRR)National Rehabilitation HospitalWashingtonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biomedical EngineeringThe Catholic University of AmericaWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations