Psychological Research

, Volume 71, Issue 4, pp 438–447 | Cite as

Target-related coupling in bimanual reaching movements

  • Matthias Weigelt
  • Martina Rieger
  • Franz Mechsner
  • Wolfgang Prinz
Original Article


While bimanual interference effects can be observed when symbolic cues indicate the parameter values of simultaneous reaching movements, these effects disappear under conditions in which the target locations of two movements are cued directly. The present study investigates the generalizability of these target-location cuing benefits to conditions in which symbolic cues are used to indicate target locations (i.e., the end points of bimanual movements). Participants were asked to move to two of four possible target locations, being located either at the same and different distances (Experiment 1), or in the same and different directions (Experiment 2). Circles and crosses served as symbolic target-location cues and were arranged in a symmetric or non-symmetric fashion over the four target locations. Each trial was preceded by a variable precuing interval. Results revealed faster initiation times for equivalent as compared to non-equivalent target locations (same vs. different cues). Moreover, the time course of prepartion suggests that this effect is in fact due to target-equivalence and not to cue-similarity. Bimanual interference relative to movement parameter values was not observed. These findings suggest that cuing target locations can dominate potential intermanual interference effects during the concurrent programming of different movement parameter values.


Target Location Stimulus Onset Asynchrony Movement Time Concurrent Programming Bimanual Coordination 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Cardosa S. de Oliveira (2002). The neuronal basis of bimanual coordination: recent neurophysiological evidence and functional models. Acta Physiologica, 110, 139–159.Google Scholar
  2. Diedrichsen, J., Hazeltine, E., Kennerley, S., & Ivry, R.B. (2001). Moving to directly cued locations abolishes spatial interference during bimanual actions. Psychological Science, 12(6), 493–498.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Diedrichsen, J., Ivry, R.B., Hazeltine, E., Kennerly, S., & Cohen, A. (2003). Bimanual inference associated with the selection of target locations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, Vol. 29 (1), 64–77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hazeltine, E., Diedrichsen, J., Kennerley, S.W., & Ivry, R.B. (2003). Bimanual cross-talk during reaching movements is primarily related to response selection, not the specification of movement parameters. Psychological Research, 67, 56–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Heuer, H. (1993). Structural constraints on bimanual movements. Psychological Research, 55, 83–98.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Heuer, H., Spijkers, W., Kleinsorge, T., van der Loo, H., & Steglich, C. (1998). The time course of cross-talk during the simultaneous specification of bimanual movement amplitudes. Experimental Brain Research, 118, 381–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(4).Google Scholar
  8. Ivry, R.B., Diedrichsen, J., Spencer, R.C.M., Hazeltine, E., & Semjen, A. (2004). A cognitive neuroscience perspective on bimanual coordination. In S. Swinnen and J. Duysens (Eds.), Neuro-Behavioral Determinants of Interlimb Coordination: A Multidisciplinary Approach. Norwell: KluwerGoogle Scholar
  9. Kelso, J.S., Southard, D.L., & Goodman, D. (1979). On the coordination of two-handed movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 5, 229–238.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Kunde, W. & Weigelt, M. (2005). Goal-congruency in bimanual object manipulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31 (1), 145–156.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Marteniuk, R.G., MacKenzie, C.L., & Baba, D.M. (1984). Bimanual movement control: Information processing and interaction effects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 36(2), 335–365.Google Scholar
  12. Prinz, W. (1997). Perception and action planning. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 9(20), 129–154.Google Scholar
  13. Rinkenauer, G., Ulrich, R., & Wing, A.M. (2001). Brief bimanual force pulses: correlations between the hands in force and time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27(6), 1485–1497.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Rosenbaum, D.A. (1980). Human movement initiation: Specification of arm, direction, and extent. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 109, 444–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Rosenbaum, D.A. (1983). The movement precueing technique: Assumptions application, and extension. In R. A. Magill (Ed.): Memory and control of action. (pp. 231–274). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  16. Schmidt, R.A. & Lee, T.D. (Eds.). (1999). Motor control and learning: a behavioral emphasis (3 Ed.). Campaign: Human Kinetics.Google Scholar
  17. Spijkers, W. & Heuer, H. (1995). Structural constraints on the performance of symmetrical bimanual movements with different amplitudes. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 48(3), 716–740.Google Scholar
  18. 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 Psychologica, 96, 207–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Steglich, C. (2002). Experimentelle Untersuchungen zur bimanuellen Koordination als transiente Kopplung bei der Richtungsspezifikation. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis. RWTH Aachen.Google Scholar
  20. Steglich, C., Heuer, H., Spijkers, W., & Kleinsorge, T. (1999). Bimanual coupling during the specification of isometric forces. Experimental Brain Research, 129(2), 302–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Weigelt, M., Kunde, W., & Prinz, W. (2005). End-state comfort in bimanual object manipulation. Experimental Psychology, (in press).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthias Weigelt
    • 1
  • Martina Rieger
    • 1
  • Franz Mechsner
    • 1
    • 2
  • Wolfgang Prinz
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyMax Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain SciencesMuenchenGermany
  2. 2.Institute of Occupational PhysiologyDortmundGermany

Personalised recommendations