Abstract
We sought to understand differences in joint coordination between the dominant and nondominant arms when performing repetitive tasks. The uncontrolled manifold approach was used to decompose the variability of joint motions into components that reflect the use of motor redundancy or movement error. First, we hypothesized that coordination of the dominant arm would demonstrate greater use of motor redundancy to compensate for interaction forces than would coordination of the nondominant arm. Secondly, we hypothesized that when interjoint dynamics were more complex, control of the interlimb relationship would remain stable despite differences in control of individual hand paths. Healthy adults performed bimanual tracing of two orientations of ellipses that resulted in different magnitudes of elbow interaction forces. For the dominant arm, joint variance leading to hand path error was the same for both ellipsis orientations, whereas joint variance reflecting the use of motor redundancy increased when interaction moment was highest. For the nondominant arm, more joint error variance was found when interaction moment was highest, whereas motor redundancy did not differ across orientations. There was no apparent difference in interjoint dynamics between the two arms. Thus, greater skill exhibited by the dominant arm may be related to its ability to utilize motor redundancy to compensate for the effect of interaction forces. However, despite the greater error associated with control of the nondominant hand, control of the interlimb relationship remained stable when the interaction moment increased. This suggests separate levels of control for inter- versus intra-limb coordination in this bimanual task.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Amazeen EL, Amazeen PG, Treffner PJ, Turvey MT (1997) Attention and handedness in bimanual coordination dynamics. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 23:1552–1560
Bagesteiro LB, Sainburg RL (2002) Handedness: dominant arm advantages in control of limb dynamics. J Neurophysiol 88:2408–2421
Bastian AJ, Martin TA, Keating JG, Thach WT (1996) Cerebellar ataxia: abnormal control of interaction torques across multiple joints. J Neurophysiol 76:492–509
Beer RF, Dewald JPA, Rymer WZ (2000) Deficits in the coordination of multijoint arm movements in patients with hemiparesis: evidence for disturbed control of limb dynamics. Exp Brain Res 131:305–319
Bernstein NA (1967) The coordination and regulation of movements. Pergamon Press, London
Buchanan JJ, Ryu YU (2005) The interaction of tactile information and movement amplitude in a multijoint bimanual circle-tracing task: phase transitions and loss of stability. Q J Exp Psychol A 58:769–787
Buchanan JJ, Ryu YU (2006) One-to-one and polyrhythmic temporal coordination in bimanual circle tracing. J Mot Behav 38:163–184
Carson RG, Thomas J, Summers JJ, Walters MR, Semjen A (1997) The dynamics of bimanual circle drawing. Q J Exp Psychol A 50:664–683
Cole KJ, Abbs JH (1986) Coordination of three-joint digit movements for rapid finger-thumb grasp. J Neurophysiol 55:1407–1423
Crosby CA, Wehbe MA, Mawr B (1994) Hand strength: normative values. J Hand Surg [Am] 19:665–670
Cruse H, Wischmeyer E, Bruwer M, Brockfeld P, Dress A (1990) On the cost functions for the control of the human arm movement. Biol Cybern 62:519–528
Desmurget M, Prablanc C (1997) Postural control of three-dimensional prehension movements. J Neurophysiol 77:452–464
Diedrichsen J, Hazeltine E, Nurss WK, Ivry RB (2003) The role of the corpus callosum in the coupling of bimanual isometric force pulses. J Neurophysiol 90:2409–2418
Domkin D, Laczko J, Jaric S, Johansson H, Latash ML (2002) Structure of joint variability in bimanual pointing tasks. Exp Brain Res 143:11–23
Domkin D, Laczko J, Djupsjobacka M, Jaric S, Latash ML (2005) Joint angle variability in 3D bimanual pointing: uncontrolled manifold analysis. Exp Brain Res 163:44–57
Donchin O, Gribova A, Steinberg O, Bergman H, Cardoso de Oliveira S, Vaadia E (2001) Local field potentials related to bimanual movements in the primary and supplementary motor cortices. Exp Brain Res 140:46–55
Dounskaia N, Ketcham CJ, Stelmach GE (2002) Commonalities and differences in control of various drawing movements. Exp Brain Res 146:11–25
Duff SV, Sainburg RL (2007) Lateralization of motor adaptation reveals independence in control of trajectory and steady-state position. Exp Brain Res 179:551–561
Elliott D, Helsen WF, Chua R (2001) A century later: Woodworth’s (1899) two-component model of goal-directed aiming. Psychol Bull 127:342–357
Flowers K (1975) Handedness and controlled movement. Br J Psychol 66:39–52
Franz EA, Eliassen JC, Ivry RB, Gazzaniga MS (1996) Dissociation of spatial and temporal coupling in the bimanual movements of callosotomy patients. Psychol Sci 7:306–310
Franz EA, Rowse A, Ballantine B (2002) Does handedness determine which hand leads in a bimanual task? J Mot Behav 34:402–412
Gelfand IM, Tsetlin ML (1969) On mathematical modeling of the mechanisms of the central nervous system. Nauka, Moscow
Ghez C, Gordon J, Ghilardi MF (1995) Impairments of reaching movements in patients without proprioception. II. Effects of visual information on accuracy. J Neurophysiol 73:361–372
Gorniak S, Zatsiorsky VM, Latash ML (2007a) Emerging and disappearing synergies in a hierarchically controlled system. Exp Brain Res 183:259–270
Gorniak S, Zatsiorsky VM, Latash ML (2007b) Hierarchies of synergies: an example of two-hand, multi-finger tasks. Exp Brain Res 179:167–180
Hanavan EP (1964) Inertial properties of a 50th percentile male. In: A mathematical model of the human body. AMRL-TR–102. Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory, Wright–Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio
Hildreth G (1949) The development and training of hand dominance; developmental tendencies in handedness. J Genet Psychol 75:221–275
Kazennikov O, Wicki U, Corboz M, Hyland B, Palmeri A, Rouiller EM, Wiesendanger M (1994) Temporal structure of a bimanual goal-directed movement sequence in monkeys. Eur J Neurosci 6:203–210
Kazennikov O, Perrig S, Wiesendanger M (2002) Kinematics of a coordinated goal-directed bimanual task. Behav Brain Res 134:83–91
Kelso JAS, Southard DL, Goodman D (1979) On the coordination of two-handed movements. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 2:229–238
Kermadi I, Liu Y, Tempini A, Calciati E, Rouiller EM (1998) Neuronal activity in the primate supplementary motor area and the primary motor cortex in relation to spatio-temporal bimanual coordination. Somatosens Mot Res 15:287–308
Krishnamoorthy V, Yang JF, Scholz JP (2005) Joint coordination during quiet stance: effects of vision. Exp Brain Res 164:1–17
Latash M (2000) There is no motor redundancy in human movements. There is motor abundance. Mot Control 4:259–260
Latash ML, Scholz JF, Danion F, Schöner G (2002) Finger coordination during discrete and oscillatory force production tasks. Exp Brain Res 146:419–432
Latash ML, Danion F, Scholz JP, Zatsiorsky VM, Schöner G (2003) Approaches to analysis of handwriting as a task of coordinating a redundant motor system. Hum Mov Sci 22:153–171
Latash ML, Scholz JP, Schöner G (2007) Toward a new theory of motor synergies. Mot Control 11:276–308
Lavrysen A, Heremans E, Peeters R, Wenderoth N, Helsen WF, Feys P, Swinnen SP (2008) Hemispheric asymmetries in eye-hand coordination. Neuroimage 39:1938–1949
Li Y, Levin O, Forner-Cordero A, Swinnen SP (2005) Interactions between interlimb and intralimb coordination during the performance of bimanual multijoint movements. Exp Brain Res 163:515–526
Martin V, Scholz JP, Schöner G (2008) Redundancy, self-motion and motor control. Neural Comput (in press)
McDonald PV, van Emmerik RE, Newell KM (1989) The effects of practice on limb kinematics in a throwing task. J Mot Behav 21:245–264
Murray R, Li Z, Sastry SS (1994) A mathematical introduction to robotic manipulation. CRC Press, Boca Raton
Oldfield RC (1971) The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh Inventory. Neuropsychologia 9:97–113
Reisman DS, Scholz JP (2003) Aspects of joint coordination are preserved during pointing in persons with post-stroke hemiparesis. Brain 126:2510–2527
Ryu YU, Buchanan JJ (2004) Amplitude scaling in a bimanual circle-drawing task: pattern switching and end-effector variability. J Mot Behav 36:265–279
Sainburg RL (2002) Evidence for a dynamic-dominance hypothesis of handedness. Exp Brain Res 142:241–258
Sainburg RL, Kalakanis D (2000) Differences in control of limb dynamics during dominant and nondominant arm reaching. J Neurophysiol 83:2661–2675
Sainburg RL, Ghilardi MF, Poizner H, Ghez C (1995) Control of limb dynamics in normal subjects and patients without proprioception. J Neurophysiol 73:820–835
Schaal S, Sternad D, Osu R, Kawato M (2004) Rhythmic arm movement is not discrete. Nat Neurosci 7:1136–1143
Scholz JP, Kubo M (2008) Implications of research on motor redundancy for rehabilitation of neurological patients. Jpn Phys Ther J (in press)
Scholz JP, Schöner G (1999) The uncontrolled manifold concept: identifying control variables for a functional task. Exp Brain Res 126:289–306
Scholz JP, Reisman D, Schöner G (2001) Effects of varying task constraints on solutions to joint coordination in a sit-to-stand task. Exp Brain Res 141:485–500
Scholz JP, Kang N, Patterson D, Latash ML (2003) Uncontrolled manifold analysis of single trials during multi-finger force production by persons with and without Down syndrome. Exp Brain Res 153:45–58
Schöner G (1995) Recent developments and problems in human movement science and their conceptual implications. Ecol Psychol 7:291–314
Schwartz AB, Moran DW (2000) Arm trajectory and representation of movement processing in motor cortical activity. Eur J Neurosci 12:1851–1856
Semjen A, Summers JJ, Cattaert D (1995) Hand coordination in bimanual circle drawing. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 21:1139–1157
Sternad D (2007) Towards a unified theory for rhythmic and discrete movements-behavioral, modeling and imaging results. In: Fuchs A, Jirsa V (eds) Coordination: neural, behavioral and social dynamics. Springer, New York, pp 105–136
Teeken JC, Adam JJ, Paas FG, van Boxtel MP, Houx PJ, Jolles J (1996) Effects of age and gender on discrete and reciprocal aiming movements. Psychol Aging 11:195–198
Tseng YW, Scholz JP (2005) Unilateral vs. bilateral coordination of circle-drawing tasks. Acta Psychol (Amst) 120:172–198
Tseng Y, Scholz JP, Schöner G (2002) Goal-equivalent joint coordination in pointing: effect of vision and arm dominance. Mot Control 6:183–207
Tseng Y, Scholz JP, Schöner G, Hotchkiss L (2003) Effect of accuracy constraint on joint coordination during pointing movements. Exp Brain Res 149:276–288
Tseng Y, Scholz JP, Martin V (2006) Effects of movement frequency and joint kinetics on the joint coordination underlying bimanual circle drawing. J Mot Behav 38:383–404
Vereijken B, Whiting HTA, Newell KM, van Emmerik RE (1992) Free(z)ing degrees of freedom in skill acquisition. J Mot Behav 24:133–142
Walters MR, Carson RG (1997) A method for calculating the circularity of movement trajectories. J Mot Behav 29:72–84
Wang J, Sainburg RL (2007) The dominant and nondominant arms are specialized for stabilizing different features of task performance. Exp Brain Res 178:565–570
Wei K, Wertman G, Sternad D (2003) Interactions between rhythmic and discrete components in a bimanual task. Mot Control 7:134–154
Wiesendanger M, Serrien DJ (2001) Toward a physiological understanding of human dexterity. News Physiol Sci 16:228–233
Wiesendanger M, Kaluzny P, Kazennikov O, Palmeri A, Perrig S (1994) Temporal coordination in bimanual actions. Can J Physiol Pharmacol 72:591–594
Winter DA (1979) Biomechanics of human movement. Wiley, New York
Wuyts IJ, Summers JJ, Carson RG, Byblow WD, Semjen A (1996) Attention as a mediating variable in the dynamics of bimanual coordination. Hum Mov Sci 15:877–897
Yang JF, Scholz JP (2005) Learning a throwing task is associated with differential changes in the use of motor abundance. Exp Brain Res 163:137–158
Acknowledgments
The project was supported by grant number NS050880 from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. We also thank Valere Martin for his help on deriving the dynamics equations.
Conflict of interest statement
The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke or the National Institutes of Health.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
To compute the equations of motion, the Lagrangian of the arm was formulated in terms of joint angles and joint velocities, and then solved analytically using Mathematica® 5.0 (Wolfram Research, Inc.). The general formulation of equations of motion can be represented as
where \( H(\theta ,\dot{\theta }) \) is a combination of Coriolis and centrifugal forces acting at each joint and its magnitude depends on the motion and position of other joints. τ muscle is the generalized muscle moment (MM) that includes active muscle activity and passive forces arising from the viscoelastic properties of muscles, tendons, ligaments and periarticular soft tissues. There is no gravitational moment, since movement is constrained in a horizontal plane. M(θ) is a 4 × 4, configuration-dependent inertial matrix; \( \ddot{\theta },\;\dot{\theta }\;{\text{and}}\;\theta \) are the vectors of joint acceleration, velocity and angle, respectively. The inertial matrix M(θ) has diagonal entries corresponding to the inertia of a given segment of interest and off-diagonal entries capturing the effect on each joint based on the acceleration of the other joints. By separating out the two components of the inertial matrix, M d(θ) and M nd(θ), Eq. 5 can be written as:
Equation 6 can be further represented as the following, by grouping the appropriate terms for interaction moments
The net moment (NM) is proportional to joint acceleration and is directly responsible for motion of this joint. IM is the interaction moment that depends on mutual interactions with the other joints. MM represents the generalized muscle moment.
The individual terms of the M and H matrices are listed below. Note that the diagonal terms are M 1,1, M2,2, M3,3, M4,4, while the off diagonal terms are M i,j, where i ≠ j; i and j = 1, 2, 3, 4. The same arrangement applies to the H matrix. Notation: θ i angle of the ith joint; l i length of the ith segment; r i position of the center of mass of the ith joint from the proximal end of that segment; m i mass of the ith segment; I i moment of inertia of the ith segment. The number representing each arm segment and joint angle (in parentheses): 1 clavicle (scapula); 2 upper arm (shoulder); 3 forearm (elbow); 4 hand (wrist).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Tseng, Yw., Scholz, J.P. & Galloway, J.C. The organization of intralimb and interlimb synergies in response to different joint dynamics. Exp Brain Res 193, 239–254 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-008-1616-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-008-1616-1