Advertisement

Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 237, Issue 12, pp 3133–3142 | Cite as

Hemispheric lateralization does not affect the cognitive and mechanical cost of a sequential motor task

  • Christoph SchützEmail author
  • Thomas Schack
Research Article
  • 73 Downloads

Abstract

In sequential, repetitive tasks, we often partially reuse former motor plans. This causes a persistence of an earlier adopted posture (termed motor hysteresis). The cost-optimization hypothesis states that a partial reuse reduces the cognitive cost of a movement, while the persistence in a former posture increases its mechanical cost. An optimal fraction of reuse, which depends on the relative cognitive and mechanical cost, minimizes the total movement cost. Several studies postulate differences in mechanical or cognitive cost as a result of hemispheric lateralization. In the current study, we asked whether these differences would result in different fractions of motor plan reuse. To this end, left- and right-handed dominant participants executed a sequential motor task (opening a column of drawers) with their dominant and non-dominant hand. The size of the motor hysteresis effect was measured as a proxy for the fraction of plan reuse. Participants used similar postures and exhibited a similar hysteresis effect, irrespective of hand and handedness. This finding indicates that either the cognitive and mechanical costs of a motor task are unaffected by hemispheric differences or that their effect on motor planning is negligible.

Keywords

Motor planning Motor hysteresis Hemispheric lateralization Handedness 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by Grant SCHU 2459/2-1 of the German Research Foundation (DFG) granted to Christoph Schütz.

Supplementary material

221_2019_5652_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (300 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 299 kb)

References

  1. Annett J, Annett M, Hudson PTW, Turner A (1979) Control of movement in the preferred and non-preferred hands. Q J Exp Psychol 31:641–652PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bagesteiro LB, Sainburg RL (2002) Handedness: dominant arm advantages in control of limb dynamics. J Neurophysiol 88:2408–2421PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bagesteiro LB, Sainburg RL (2003) Nondominant arm advantages in load compensation during rapid elbow joint movements. J Neurophysiol 90:1503–1513PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Carson RG, Elliott D, Goodman D, Thyer L, Chua R, Roy EA (1993) The role of impulse variability in manual-aiming asymmetries. Psychol Res 55:291–298Google Scholar
  5. Carson RG, Chua R, Goodman D, Byblow WD, Elliott D (1995) The preparation of aiming movements. Brain Cogn 28:133–154PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Coelho CJ, Przybyla A, Yadav V, Sainburg RL (2013) Hemispheric differences in the control of limb dynamics: a link between arm performance asymmetries and arm selection patterns. J Neurophysiol 109:825–838PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Crajé C, van der Kamp J, Steenbergen B (2009) Visual information for action planning in left and right congenital hemiparesis. Brain Res 1261:54–64PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Crajé C, van Elk M, Beeren M, van Schie HT, Bekkering H, Steenbergen B (2010) Compromised motor planning and motor imagery in right hemiparetic cerebral palsy. Res Dev Disabil 31:1313–1322PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Creem SH, Proffitt DR (2001) Grasping objects by their handles: a necessary interaction between cognition and action. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 27:218–228PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. D’Amico EJ, Neilands TB, Zambarano R (2001) Power analysis for multivariate and repeated measures designs: a flexible approach using the SPSS MANOVA procedure. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 33:479–484.  https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03195405 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Daprati E, Nico D, Duval S, Lacquaniti F (2010) Different motor imagery modes following brain damage. Cortex 46:1016–1030PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Debaere F, Wenderoth N, Sunaert S, Van Hecke P, Swinnen SP (2004) Changes in brain activation during the acquisition of a new bimanual coordination task. Neuropsychologia 42:855–867.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2003.12.010 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Diedrichsen J, Hazeltine E, Kennerley S, Ivry RB (2001) Moving to directly cued locations abolishes spatial interference during bimanual actions. Psychol Sci 12:493–498.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00391 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Diedrichsen J, Ivry RB, Hazeltine E, Kennerley S, Cohen A (2003) Bimanual interference associated with the selection of target locations. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 29:64–77.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.29.1.64 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Grafton ST, Fadiga L, Arbib MA, Rizzolatti G (1997) Premotor cortex activation during observation and naming of familiar tools. NeuroImage 6:231–236PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Grèzes J, Decety J (2002) Does visual perception of object afford action? Evidence from a neuroimaging study. Neuropsychologia 40:212–222PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Haaland KY, Harrington DL (1996) Hemispheric asymmetry of movement. Curr Opin Neurobiol 6:796–800PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Haslinger B et al (2004) Reduced recruitment of motor association areas during bimanual coordination in concert pianists. Hum Brain Mapp 22:206–215.  https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.20028 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Hazeltine E, Ivry R, Grafton ST (1997) Attention and stimulus characteristics determine the locus of motor-sequence encoding. A PET study. Brain 120:123–140.  https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/120.1.123 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Herbort O, Butz MV (2011) Habitual and goal-directed factors in (everyday) object handling. Exp Brain Res 213:371PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Herbort O, Mathew H, Kunde W (2017) Habit outweighs planning in grasp selection for object manipulation. Cogn Psychol 92:127–140PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Honda M, Deiber MP, Ibáñez V, Pascual-Leone A, Zhuang P, Hallett M (1998) Dynamic cortical involvement in implicit and explicit motor sequence learning. A PET study. Brain 121:2159–2173.  https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/121.11.2159 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Hughes CML, Franz EA (2008) Goal-related planning constraints in bimanual grasping and placing of objects. Exp Brain Res 188:541–550PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Hughes CML, Reißig P, Seegelke C (2011) Motor planning and execution in left- and right-handed individuals during a bimanual grasping and placing task. Acta Physiol (Oxf) 138:111–118Google Scholar
  25. Hund-Georgiadis M, von Cramon DY (1999) Motor-learning-related changes in piano players and non-musicians revealed by functional magnetic-resonance signals. Exp Brain Res 125:417–425.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s002210050698 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Iacoboni M, Woods RP, Mazziotta JC (1996) Brain-behavior relationships: evidence from practice effects in spatial stimulus-response compatibility. J Neurophysiol 76:321–331.  https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.1996.76.1.321 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Jäncke L, Shah NJ, Peters M (2000) Cortical activations in primary and secondary motor areas for complex bimanual movements in professional pianists. Cogn Brain Res 10:177–183.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0926-6410(00)00028-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Janssen L, Beuting M, Meulenbroek R, Steenbergen B (2009) Combined effects of planning and execution constraints on bimanual task performance. Exp Brain Res 192:61–73PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Janssen L, Meulenbroek RGJ, Steenbergen B (2011) Behavioral evidence for left-hemisphere specialization of motor planning. Exp Brain Res 209:65–72.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-010-2519-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Jax SA, Rosenbaum DA (2007) Hand path priming in manual obstacle avoidance: evidence that the dorsal stream does not only control visually guided actions in real time. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 33:425–441PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Jax SA, Rosenbaum DA (2009) Hand path priming in manual obstacle avoidance: rapid decay of dorsal stream information. Neuropsychologia 47:1573–1577PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Kelly AMC, Garavan H (2004) Human functional neuroimaging of brain changes associated with practice. Cereb Cortex 15:1089–1102.  https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhi005 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Kelso JAS, Buchanan JJ, Murata T (1994) Multifunctionality and switching in the coordination dynamics of reaching and grasping. Hum Mov Sci 13:63–94Google Scholar
  34. 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 261:615–617PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Krings T, Töpper R, Foltys H, Erberich S, Sparing R, Willmes K, Thron A (2000) Cortical activation patterns during complex motor tasks in piano players and control subjects. A functional magnetic resonance imaging study. Neurosci Lett 278:189–193.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3940(99)00930-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. MacNeilage PF, Rogers LJ, Vallortigara G (2009) Origins of the left and right brain. Sci Am 301:60–67PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Masson ME, Bub DN, Breuer AT (2011) Priming of reach and grasp actions by handled objects. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 37:1470–1484PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Matsumoto M, Nishimura T (1998) Mersenne twister: a 623-dimensionally equidistributed uniform pseudo-random number generator. ACM Trans Model Comput Simul 8:3–30Google Scholar
  39. Meister I, Krings T, Foltys H, Boroojerdi B, Müller M, Töpper R, Thron A (2005) Effects of long-term practice and task complexity in musicians and nonmusicians performing simple and complex motor tasks: implications for cortical motor organization. Hum Brain Mapp 25:345–352.  https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.20112 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Mutsaarts M, Steenbergen B, Bekkering H (2007) Impaired motor imagery in right hemiparetic cerebral palsy. Neuropsychologia 45:853–859PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Oldfield RC (1971) The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologica 9:97–113Google Scholar
  42. Picard N, Matsuzaka Y, Strick PL (2013) Extended practice of a motor skill is associated with reduced metabolic activity in M1. Nat Neurosci 16:1340.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3477 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. Poldrack RA (2000) Imaging brain plasticity: conceptual and methodological issues—a theoretical review. NeuroImage 12:1–13.  https://doi.org/10.1006/nimg.2000.0596 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Rosenbaum DA, Jorgensen MJ (1992) Planning macroscopic aspects of manual control. Hum Mov Sci 11:61–69Google Scholar
  45. Rosenbaum DA, Cohen RG, Jax SA, Weiss DJ, van der Wel RPRD (2007) The problem of serial order in behavior: Lashley’s legacy. Hum Mov Sci 26:525–554PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Roy EA, Elliott D (1989) Manual asymmetries in aimed movements. Q J Exp Psychol Sect A 41:501–516Google Scholar
  47. Sainburg RL (2002) Evidence for a dynamic-dominance hypothesis of handedness. Exp Brain Res 142:241–258PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Sainburg RL (2014) Convergent models of handedness and brain lateralization. Front Psychol 5:1092PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  49. Sainburg RL, Kalakanis D (2000) Differences in control of limb dynamics during dominant and nondominant arm reaching. J Neurophysiol 83:2661–2675PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Schluter ND, Rushworth MF, Passingham RE, Mills KR (1998) Temporary interference in human lateral premotor cortex suggests dominance for the selection of movements. A study using transcranial magnetic stimulation. Brain J Neurol 121:785–799Google Scholar
  51. Schluter ND, Krams M, Rushworth MFS, Passingham RE (2001) Cerebral dominance for action in the human brain: the selection of actions. Neuropsychologia 39:105–113PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Schütz C, Schack T (2013) Influence of mechanical load on sequential effects. Exp Brain Res 228:445–455PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Schütz C, Schack T (2015) Movement plans for posture selection do not transfer across hands. Front Psychol 6:1358PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  54. Schütz C, Weigelt M, Odekerken D, Klein-Soetebier T, Schack T (2011) Motor control strategies in a continuous task space. Mot Control 15:321–341Google Scholar
  55. Schütz C, Weigelt M, Schack T (2016) Cognitive costs of motor planning do not differ between pointing and grasping in a sequential task. Exp Brain Res 234:2035–2043.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-016-4608-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Schütz C, Weigelt M, Schack T (2017) Motor hysteresis in a sequential grasping and pointing task is absent in task-critical joints. Exp Brain Res 235:703–712.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-016-4831-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Short MW, Cauraugh JH (1997) Planning macroscopic aspects of manual control: end-state comfort and point-of-change effects. Acta Physiol (Oxf) 96:133–147Google Scholar
  58. Spijkers W, Heuer H, Kleinsorge T, van der Loo H (1997) Preparation of bimanual movements with same and different amplitudes: specification interference as revealed by reaction time. Acta Physiol (Oxf) 96:207–227.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-6918(97)00017-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Stöckel T, Hughes CL, Schack T (2012) Representation of grasp postures and anticipatory motor planning in children. Psychol Res 76:768–776.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-011-0387-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Thibaut J-P, Toussaint L (2010) Developing motor planning over ages. J Exp Child Psychol 105:116–129PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Tucker M, Ellis R (1998) On the relations between seen objects and components of potential actions. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 24:830–846PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Weigelt M, Schack T (2010) The development of end-state comfort planning in preschool children. Exp Psychol 57:476–482PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Weigelt M, Kunde W, Prinz W (2006) End-state comfort in bimanual object manipulation. Exp Psychol 53:143–148PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Weigelt M, Rosenbaum DA, Hülshorst S, Schack T (2009) Moving and memorizing: motor planning modulates the recency effect in serial and free recall. Acta Physiol (Oxf) 132:68–79Google Scholar
  65. World Medical Association (2013) World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA 310:2191–2194.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.281053 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cluster of Excellence Cognitive Interaction Technology, Bielefeld UniversityBielefeldGermany
  2. 2.Faculty of Psychology and Sports ScienceBielefeld UniversityBielefeldGermany
  3. 3.CoR-Lab, Research Institute for Cognition and RoboticsBielefeld UniversityBielefeldGermany

Personalised recommendations