Literature DB >> 12589450

Bimanual cross-talk during reaching movements is primarily related to response selection, not the specification of motor parameters.

Eliot Hazeltine1, Joern Diedrichsen, Steven W Kennerley, Richard B Ivry.   

Abstract

Simultaneous reaching movements made with the two hands can show a considerable increase in reaction time (RT) when they differ in terms of direction or extent, compared to when the movements involve the same direction and extent. This cost has been attributed to cross-talk in the specification of the motor parameters for the two hands. However, a recent study [Diedrichsen, Hazeltine, Kennerley, & Ivry, (2001). Psychological Science, 12, 493-498] indicates that when reaching movements are cued by the onset of the target endpoint, no compatibility effects are observed. To determine why directly cued movements are immune from interference, we varied the stimulus onset asynchrony for the two movements and used different combinations of directly cued and symbolically cued movements. In two experiments, compatibility effects were only observed when both movements were symbolically cued. No difference was found between compatible and incompatible movements when both movements were directly cued or when one was directly cued and the other was symbolically cued. These results indicate that interference is not related to the specification of movement parameters but instead emerges from processes associated with response selection. Moreover, the data suggest that cross-talk, when present, primarily shortens the RT of the second movement on compatible trials rather than lengthening this RT on incompatible trials.

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12589450     DOI: 10.1007/s00426-002-0119-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychol Res        ISSN: 0340-0727


  20 in total

1.  Bimanual coordination affects motor task switching.

Authors:  Brandon J Bernardin; Andrea H Mason
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2011-10-09       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  Modality pairing effects and the response selection bottleneck.

Authors:  Eliot Hazeltine; Eric Ruthruff
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2005-09-06

3.  The influence of movement cues on intermanual interactions.

Authors:  Herbert Heuer; Wolfhard Klein
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2005-08-05

4.  Goal congruency without stimulus congruency in bimanual coordination.

Authors:  Wilfried Kunde; Henrike Krauss; Matthias Weigelt
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2008-03-05

5.  Memory and coordination in bimanual isometric finger force production.

Authors:  Nick J Davis
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2007-08-10       Impact factor: 1.972

6.  Effects of stimulus cueing on bimanual grasp posture planning.

Authors:  Charmayne M L Hughes; Christian Seegelke; Paola Reissig; Christoph Schütz
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2012-05-05       Impact factor: 1.972

7.  Comparing movement preparation of unimanual, bimanual symmetric, and bimanual asymmetric movements.

Authors:  Jarrod Blinch; Brendan D Cameron; Erin K Cressman; Ian M Franks; Mark G Carpenter; Romeo Chua
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2014-01-01       Impact factor: 1.972

8.  Bimanual reaches with symbolic cues exhibit errors in target selection.

Authors:  Jarrod Blinch; Brendan D Cameron; Ian M Franks; Romeo Chua
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2011-06-18       Impact factor: 1.972

9.  The impact of perceptual, cognitive and motor factors on bimanual coordination.

Authors:  N M Procacci; T R Stanford
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2012-12-04

10.  Movement order and saccade direction affect a common measure of eye-hand coordination in bimanual reaching.

Authors:  Eric Mooshagian; Cunguo Wang; Afreen Ferdoash; Lawrence H Snyder
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2014-05-21       Impact factor: 2.714

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.