The influence of movement cues on intermanual interactions
In two experiments, we studied intermanual interactions in bimanual reversal movements and bimanual aiming movements. Targets were presented on a monitor or directly on the table on which the movements were produced. Amplitudes for each hand were cued symbolically or spatially either in advance of an imperative signal or simultaneous with it. In contrast to findings of Diedrichsen et al. (Psychological Science, 12, 493–498, 2001), reaction times for different-amplitude movements were longer than for same-amplitude movements both for symbolic and spatial cues presented on the monitor and directly on the table. However, with symbolic cues the effect of the relation between target amplitudes was considerably stronger than with spatial cues, no matter where the cues were presented. Intermanual correlations of amplitudes, movement times, and reaction times were smaller with different than with same target amplitudes, and this modulation was more pronounced when targets and cues were presented on the monitor than when they were presented on the table. The findings are taken to suggest that the basic reaction-time disadvantage of different-amplitude movements results from interference between concurrent processes of amplitude specification. Additional factors like interference between concurrent processes of mapping cues on movement characteristics may add strongly to it.
KeywordsMovement Time Concurrent Process Imperative Signal Bimanual Movement Assimilation Effect
This research was supported by grant HE 1187/14-1 of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. We thank Barbara Herbst, Holger Küper, Kevin Schepers, and Henning Stracke for their support in setting up and running the experiments.
- Corcos, D.M. (1984). Two-handed movement control. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 55, 117–122.Google Scholar
- Donchin, O., & Cardoso de Oliveira, S. (2004). Electrophysiological approaches to bimanual coordination in primates. In: S.P. Swinnen & J. Duysens (Eds.), Neurobehavioral determinants of interlimb coordination (pp. 131–153). Norwell, MA: Kluwer.Google Scholar
- Gordon, J., Ghilardi, M.F., & Ghez, C. (1994). Accuracy of planar reaching movements. I. Independence of direction and extent variability. Experimental Brain Research, 99, 97–111.Google Scholar
- Hening, W., Favilla, M., & Ghez, C. (1988). Trajectory control in targeted force impulses. V. Gradual specification of response amplitude. Experimental Brain Research, 71, 116–128.Google Scholar
- Heuer, H. (1986). Intermanual interactions during programming of finger movements: transient effects of ‘homologous coupling’. In: H. Heuer & C. Fromm (Eds.), Generation and modulation of action patterns (pp. 87–101). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
- Heuer, H. (1996). Coordination. In: H. Heuer & S.W. Keele (Eds.), Handbook of Perception and Action. Vol. 2: Motor skills (pp. 121–180). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Ivry, R., Diedrichsen, J., Spencer, R., Hazeltine, E., & Semjen, A. (2004). A cognitive neuroscience perspective on bimanual coordination and interference. In: S.P. Swinnen & J. Duysens (Eds.), Neuro-behavioral determinants of interlimb coordination (pp. 259–295). Norwell, MA: Kluwer.Google Scholar
- Marteniuk, R.G., & MacKenzie, C.L. (1980). A preliminary theory of two-hand co-ordinated control. In: G.E. Stelmach & J. Requin (Eds.), Tutorials in motor behavior (pp. 185–197). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
- Marteniuk, R.G., MacKenzie, C.L., & Baba, D.M. (1984). Bimanual movement control: Information processing and interaction effects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 36A, 335–365.Google Scholar
- Spijkers, W., & Heuer, H. (1995). Structural constraints on the performance of symmetrical bimanual movements with different amplitudes. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48A, 716–740.Google Scholar
- Weigelt, C., & Cardoso de Oliveira, S. (2003). Visuomotor transformations affect bimanual coupling. Experimental Brain Research, 148, 439–450.Google Scholar