Literature DB >> 12751428

Task complexity and limb selection in reaching.

Carl Gabbard1, Mike Tapia, Casi Rabb Helbig.   

Abstract

Research examining limb selection for reaching and grasping an object in various positions of hemispace has noted a strong ipsilateral bias for using the hand on the same side as the stimulus, an observation that to some extent questions the traditional notion of handedness. The present study examined the effects of task complexity in regard to such actions. Forty-four right-handed, blindfolded subjects were required to grasp a small cube at one location and release it at another site, with movement initiated only after the second cue was presented. In condition A, the first tone identified the location where the subject was to grasp the cube (the second tone, the release point), while in condition B the order was reversed. A view of both conditions revealed a similar trend. As expected, the vast majority (average 96%) used their dominant (right) hand to reach into right hemispace and release in the left field. However, when the reach cue was presented in left hemispace, only 40% of subjects selected their nondominant (ipsilateral) limb to complete the action. Since this value is substantially less than reported previously with a less complex task (70%), we speculate that when deeper processing is required there is a tendency to revert to the dominant limb, even when it necesssitates reaching contralaterally. Additional discussion focuses on programming selection for reach and release.

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12751428     DOI: 10.1080/00207450390161994

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Neurosci        ISSN: 0020-7454            Impact factor:   2.292


  8 in total

1.  Interactions between lateralized choices of hand and target.

Authors:  Jennifer Gardinier; Vanessa Franco; Marc H Schieber
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2005-11-17       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  Decisions in motion: passive body acceleration modulates hand choice.

Authors:  Romy S Bakker; Roel H A Weijer; Robert J van Beers; Luc P J Selen; W Pieter Medendorp
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2017-03-01       Impact factor: 2.714

3.  Hand use for grasping in a bimanual task: evidence for different roles?

Authors:  Kayla D Stone; Devon C Bryant; Claudia L R Gonzalez
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2012-11-18       Impact factor: 1.972

4.  Grasping with the eyes of your hands: hapsis and vision modulate hand preference.

Authors:  Kayla D Stone; Claudia L R Gonzalez
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2013-10-27       Impact factor: 1.972

5.  Hand preference across the lifespan: effects of end-goal, task nature, and object location.

Authors:  Claudia L R Gonzalez; Jason W Flindall; Kayla D Stone
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2015-01-20

6.  Effects of arm weight and target height on hand selection: A low-cost virtual reality paradigm.

Authors:  Eric James McDermott; Marc Himmelbach
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-06-21       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 7.  The contributions of vision and haptics to reaching and grasping.

Authors:  Kayla D Stone; Claudia L R Gonzalez
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2015-09-16

8.  Grasping without sight: insights from the congenitally blind.

Authors:  Kayla D Stone; Claudia L R Gonzalez
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-10-10       Impact factor: 3.240

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.