Response preparation changes following practice of an asymmetrical bimanual movement
- 125 Downloads
The purpose of the current study was to examine the effects of practice on the advance preparation of an asymmetrical bimanual movement. Participants performed 170 trials of a discrete bimanual aiming movement where the right arm moved twice the amplitude of the left, in response to an auditory “go” signal. During three of the first and last ten trials, the “go” signal was replaced with a startle (124 dB) stimulus, which is thought to trigger a prepared movement. Startle and non-startle (control) trials from early and late practice were compared on various kinematic and EMG measures. Results indicated that it is possible to pre-program a bimanual asymmetrical movement, and that advance preparation of movement amplitude changes with practice. Evidence was also provided that the different amplitude movements were performed using similar EMG timing between limbs, while adjusting the relative ratio of EMG amplitude. Furthermore, learning of the task appeared to be related to the ability to prepare the correct asymmetrical EMG amplitudes rather than changing the timing of the EMG pattern.
KeywordsResponse preparation Programming Practice Bimanual Startle
A Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada grant was awarded to Ian M. Franks. We would also like to recognize Paul Nagelkerke for his technical support.
- Carlsen AN, Chua R, Inglis JT, Sanderson DJ, Franks IM (2008b) Effect of startle and response complexity on motor preparation and reaction time. Paper presented as a poster at NASPSPA, Niagara Falls, CanadaGoogle Scholar
- Klapp ST (1996) Reaction time analysis of central motor control. In: Zelaznik HN (ed) Advances in motor learning and control. Human Kinetics, Champaign, pp 13–35Google Scholar
- Marteniuk RG, MacKenzie CL, Baba DM (1984) Bimanual movement control: information processing and interaction effects. Q J Exp Psychol A 36:335–365Google Scholar
- Piéron H (1920) Nouvelles recherches sur l’analyse du temps de latence sensorielle et sur la loi qui relie ce temps a l’intensité de l’excitation. Annee Psychol 22:58–142Google Scholar
- Rothwell JC (2006) The startle reflex, voluntary movement, and the reticulospinal tract. In: Cruccu G, Hallett M (eds) Brainstem function and dysfunction. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 221–229Google Scholar
- Schmidt RA, Lee TD (2005) Motor control and learning: a behavioral emphasis, 4th edn. Human Kinetics, ChampaignGoogle Scholar
- Schmidt RA, Heuer H, Ghodsian D, Young DE (1997) Generalized motor programs and units of action in bimanual coordination. In: Latash M (ed) Bernstein’s traditions in motor control. Erlbaum, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
- Spijkers W, Heuer H (1995) Structural constraints on the performance of symmetrical bimanual movements with different amplitudes. Q J Exp Psychol A 48:716–740Google Scholar
- Wadman WJ, van der Denier Gon JJ, Geuze RH, Mol CR (1979) Control of fast goal-directed arm movements. J Hum Mov Stud 5:3–17Google Scholar
- Young DE, Schmidt RA (1991) Motor programs as units of movement control. In: Badler NI, Barsky BA, Zeltzer D (eds) Making them move: mechanics, control and animation of articulated figures. New York, pp 129–155Google Scholar