Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 230, Issue 3, pp 323–331 | Cite as

Hemifield or hemispace: what accounts for the ipsilateral advantages in visually guided aiming?

Research Article

Abstract

Aiming movements to targets presented on the same side as the reaching limb are faster and more accurate than movements made across the body. These advantages are typically attributed to within-hemisphere sensorimotor control. However, contrary to the within- versus between-hemisphere model, we have shown that some of these advantages tend to go with the side of the movement, rather than the side of the target (Carey et al. Exp Brain Res 112:496–504, 1996; Carey and Otto-de Haart Neuropsychologia 39:894, 2001). Barthélémy and Boulinghez (Exp Brain Res 147:305–312, 2002) acknowledge that our biomechanical account fits data for post-onset movement parameters such as peak velocity and duration, yet they report evidence for some within- versus between-hemisphere contributions to reaction time (RT) advantages. To examine a possible difference between early and late movement kinematics fitting these alternative models, we have dissociated field and space in a different way, which required arm movements with differential inertial consequences, as well as unpredictability of target location in terms of visual field. The data suggest that visual field may contribute some of the variance to hemispatial effects, but only for the right hand. In a second experiment, we used an antipointing task to examine hemispatial versus visual field effects on RTs and to revisit the possible hand difference identified in experiment 1. We found that hemispace accounted for all of the ipsilateral advantages, including RT, for both right and left hands. Results are discussed in terms of the computational requirements of eye–hand coordination in relative unconstrained conditions.

Keywords

Motor control Hemispace Kinematics Reaching Interhemispheric transmission 

References

  1. Adam JJ, Parthoens S, Pratt J (2006) Distinct mechanisms for planning keypress and reaching responses: a developmental study. Hum Mov Sci 25(3):293–309PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barthélémy S, Boulinguez P (2001) Manual reaction time asymmetries in human participants: the role of movement planning and attention. Neurosci Lett 315:41–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barthélémy S, Boulinguez P (2002) Manual asymmetries in the directional coding of reaching: further evidence for hemispatial effects and right hemisphere dominance for movement planning. Exp Brain Res 147:305–312PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bestelmeyer PEG, Carey DP (2004) Processing biases towards the preferred hand: valid and invalid cueing of left-versus right-hand movements. Neuropsychologia 42:1162–1167PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boulinguez P, Nougier V, Velay JL (2001) Manual asymmetries in reaching movement control. I: study of right-handers. Cortex 37(1):101–122PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bradshaw JL, Bradshaw JA, Nettleton NC (1990) Abduction, adduction and hand differences in simple and serial movements. Neuropsychologia 28:917–931PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bryden PJ, Pryde KM, Roy EA (2000) A developmental analysis of the relationship between hand preference and performance: II. A performance-based method of measuring hand preference in children. Brain Cogn 43:60–64PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Buckingham G, Main JC, Carey DP (2011) Asymmetries in motor attention during bimanual reaching: left and right handers compared. Cortex 47:432–440PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Butler AJ, Fink GR, Dohle C, Wunderlich G, Tellmann L, Seitz RJ, Zille K, Freund H-J (2004) Neural mechanisms underlying reaching for remembered targets cued kinesthetically or visually in left or right hemispace. Hum Brain Mapp 21:165–177PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carey DP, Otto-de Haart EG (2001) Hemispatial differences in visually guided aiming are neither hemispatial nor visual. Neuropsychologia 39:885–894PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carey DP, Hargreaves EL, Goodale MA (1996) Reaching to ipsilateral or contralateral targets: within-hemisphere visuomotor processing cannot explain hemispatial differences in motor control. Exp Brain Res 112:496–504PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carnahan H (1998) Manual asymmetries when pointing and grasping in response to rapid target movement. Brain Cogn 37:237–253PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carson RG (1996) Putative right hemisphere contributions to the preparation of reaching and aiming movements. In: Elliott D, Roy EA (eds) Manual asymmetries in motor performance. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 159–172Google Scholar
  14. Carson RG, Chua R, Elliott D, Goodman D (1990) The contribution of vision to asymmetries in manual aiming. Neuropsychologia 28:1215–1220PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carson RG, Goodman D, Elliott D (1992) Asymmetries in the discrete and pseudocontinuous regulation of visually guided reaching. Brain Cogn 18:169–191PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Carson RG, Goodman D, Chua R, Elliott D (1993) Asymmetries in the regulation of visually guided aiming. J Mot Behav 25:21–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chua R, Carson RG, Goodman D, Elliott D (1992) Asymmetries in the spatial localization of transformed targets. Brain Cogn 20:227–235PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chua RG, Goodman D, Byblow WD, Elliott D (1995) The preparation of aiming movements. Brain Cogn 28:133–154PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Elias LJ, Bryden MP (1998) Footedness is a better predictor of language lateralisation than handedness. Laterality 3:41–51Google Scholar
  20. Elliot D, Roy EA, Goodman D, Carson RG, Chua R, Maraj BKV (1993) Asymmetries in the preparation and control of aiming movements. Can J Exp Psychol 47:570–589 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Elliott D, Chua R (1996) Manual asymmetries in goal-directed movement. In: Elliott D, Roy EA (eds) Manual asymmetries in motor performance. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 143–158Google Scholar
  22. Fisk JD, Goodale MA (1985) The organization of eye and limb movements during unrestricted reaching to targets in ipsilateral and contralateral space. Exp Brain Res 60:159–178PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fisk JD, Goodale MA (1988) The effects of unilateral brain damage on visually-guided reaching: hemispheric differences in the nature of the deficit. Exp Brain Res 72:425–35Google Scholar
  24. Flash (1987) The control of hand equilibrium trajectories in multi-joint arm movements. Biol Cybern 57:257–274PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gabbard C, Helbig CR (2004) What drives children’s limb selection for reaching in hemispace? Exp Brain Res 156:325–332PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ghez C, Gordon J, Ghilardi MF (1993) Programming of extent and direction in human reaching movements. Biomed Res 14(Suppl 1):1–5Google Scholar
  27. Gonzalez CL, Whitwell RL, Morrissey B, Ganel T, Goodale MA (2007) Left handedness does not extend to visually guided precision grasping. Exp Brain Res 182:275–279PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Goodale MA (1990) Brain asymmetries in the control of reaching. In: Goodale M (ed) Vision and action: the control of grasping. Ablex Publishing, Norwood, NJ, pp 14–32Google Scholar
  29. Gordon J, Gilhardi MF, Cooper SE, Ghez C (1994) Accuracy of planar reaching movements. II. Systematic errors resulting from inertial anisotropy. Exp Brain Res 99:112–130PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Guitton D, Buchtel HA, Douglas RM (1985) Frontal lobe lesions in man cause difficulties in suppressing reflexive glances and in generating goal-directed saccades. Exp Brain Res 58:455–472PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Haaland KJ, Harrington D (1996) Hemispheric asymmetry of movement. Curr Opin Neurobiol 6:796–800PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Heath M, Bell J, Holroyd CB, Krigolson O (2012) Electroencephalographic evidence of vector inversion in antipointing. Exp Brain Res 221:19–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hodges NJ, Lyons J, Cockell D, Reed A, Elliott D (1997) Hand, space and attentional asymmetries in goal-directed manual aiming. Cortex 33:251–269PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hogan (1985) The mechanics of mulit-joint posture and movement control. Biol Cybern 52:315–331PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Horstmann A, Hoffmann KP (2005) Target selection in eye–hand coordination: Do we reach to where we look or do we look to where we reach? Exp Brain Res 167:187–195Google Scholar
  36. Ingum J, Bjorklund R (1994) Effects of flunitrazepam on responses to lateralized visual stimuli: evidence for cerebral asymmetry of execution of manual movements to targets in contralateral and ipsilateral visual space. Psychopharmacology 114:551–558PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jeannerod M (1988) The neural and behavioural organization of goal-directed movements. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  38. Kim W, Buchanan J, Gabbard G (2011) Constraints on arm selection processes when reaching: degrees of freedom and joint amplitudes interact to influence limb selection. J Mot Behav 43:403–411PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Levin MF (1996) Interjoint coordination during pointing movements is disrupted in spastic hemiparesis. Brain 119:281–293PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Maraj A, Heath M (2010) Antipointing: perception-based visual information renders an offline mode of control. Exp Brain Res 202:55–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mieschke PE, Elliott D, Helsen WF, Carson RG, Coull JA (2001) Manual asymmetries in the preparation and control of goal-directed movements. Brain Cogn 45:129–40Google Scholar
  42. Miles WR (1929) Ocular dominance demonstrated by unconscious sighting. J Exp Psychol 12:113–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Prablanc C, Echallier JF, Komilis E, Jeannerod M (1979) Optimal response of the eye and hand motor systems in pointing at a visual target. I. Spatio-temporal characteristics of eye and hand movements and their relationships when varying the amount of visual information. Biol Cybern 35:113–124PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rossit S, Malhotra P, Muir K, Reeves I, Duncan G, Harvey M (2011) The role of right temporal lobe structures in off-line action: evidence from lesion-behavior mapping in stroke patients. Cereb Cortex 21:2751–2761PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Seegelke C, Hughes CML, Schack T (2011) An investigation into manual asymmetries in grasp behaviour and kinematics during an object manipulation task. Exp Brain Res 215:65–75PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Steenhuis RE, Bryden MP (1989) Different dimensions of hand preference that relate to skilled and unskilled activities. Cortex 25:289–304Google Scholar
  47. van Der Staak (1975) Intra- and interhemispheric visual-motor control of human arm movements. Neuropsycholgia 13:439–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Velay JL, Daffaure V, Raphael N, Benoit-Dubrocard S (2001) Hemispheric asymmetry and interhemispheric transfer in pointing depend on the spatial components of the movement. Cortex 37(1):75–90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Perception, Action and Memory Research Group, School of PsychologyBangor UniversityBangorUK
  2. 2.School of PsychologyUniversity of AberdeenAberdeenUK

Personalised recommendations