Literature DB >> 14745465

What drives children's limb selection for reaching in hemispace?

Carl Gabbard1, Casi Rabb Helbig.   

Abstract

Arguably, the act of reaching constitutes one of the most devoted lines of contemporary developmental research. In addition to the underlying dynamical characteristics of motor coordination, a key element in programming is limb selection, a phenomenon (handedness) that has so far resisted any reasonable unified explanation. From a more contemporary view, two factors appear to have the most influence on hand selection for a given task: motor dominance and attentional information related to task demands. This study was designed to determine what factor(s) influence choice of limb for reaching in hemispace in reference to motor dominance, object proximity, and a hemispheric bias favoring use of the hand on the same side as the stimulus. Strong right-handed children were asked to reach and retrieve a small object across right and left hemispace locations beginning with the arms uncrossed and arms-crossed. With the arms-crossed condition, an imagined and actual movement execution was administered. Results from the uncrossed condition supported previous reported findings for adults and children. That is, participants responded ipsilaterally using the hand on the same side as the stimulus, thus supporting the case for object proximity and hemispheric bias. However, in the arms-crossed condition the vast majority of participants preferred keeping the limbs crossed in response to right and left hemispace stimuli, which leads to the suggestion that object proximity rather than hemispheric bias was the driving factor in this context. The behavioral pattern for imagined and actual movement was not significantly different. Overall, the findings add to the growing acceptance that limb selection is task and context dependent, rather than a biologically based invariant feature of motor behavior.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 14745465     DOI: 10.1007/s00221-003-1792-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Exp Brain Res        ISSN: 0014-4819            Impact factor:   1.972


  29 in total

1.  Voluntary modification of automatic arm movements evoked by motion of a visual target.

Authors:  B L Day; I N Lyon
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  Development of lateralized behaviour in the human fetus from 12 to 27 weeks' gestation.

Authors:  G McCartney; P Hepper
Journal:  Dev Med Child Neurol       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 5.449

3.  Event-related potentials as a function of movement parameter variations during motor imagery and isometric action.

Authors:  D H Romero; M G Lacourse; K E Lawrence; S Schandler; M J Cohen
Journal:  Behav Brain Res       Date:  2000-12-20       Impact factor: 3.332

4.  Heritability of lobar brain volumes in twins supports genetic models of cerebral laterality and handedness.

Authors:  Daniel H Geschwind; Bruce L Miller; Charles DeCarli; Dorit Carmelli
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2002-02-26       Impact factor: 11.205

5.  Hemispatial differences in visually guided aiming are neither hemispatial nor visual.

Authors:  D P Carey; E G Otto-de Haart
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 3.139

6.  Manual asymmetries in the preparation and control of goal-directed movements.

Authors:  P E Mieschke; D Elliott; W F Helsen; R G Carson; J A Coull
Journal:  Brain Cogn       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 2.310

7.  Ipsilateral involvement of primary motor cortex during motor imagery.

Authors:  C A Porro; V Cettolo; M P Francescato; P Baraldi
Journal:  Eur J Neurosci       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 3.386

8.  Cortical and cerebellar activity of the human brain during imagined and executed unimanual and bimanual action sequences: a functional MRI study.

Authors:  Dinesh G Nair; Kari L Purcott; Armin Fuchs; Fred Steinberg; J A Scott Kelso
Journal:  Brain Res Cogn Brain Res       Date:  2003-02

9.  Hemispheric asymmetries in attentional control: implications for hand preference in sensorimotor tasks.

Authors:  M Verfaellie; K M Heilman
Journal:  Brain Cogn       Date:  1990-09       Impact factor: 2.310

Review 10.  The neurophysiological basis of motor imagery.

Authors:  J Decety
Journal:  Behav Brain Res       Date:  1996-05       Impact factor: 3.332

View more
  15 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.  Hemifield or hemispace: what accounts for the ipsilateral advantages in visually guided aiming?

Authors:  David P Carey; Jonathan Liddle
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2013-08-18       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  A dissociation between visual and motor workspace inhibits generalization of visuomotor adaptation across the limbs.

Authors:  Jinsung Wang
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2008-04-25       Impact factor: 1.972

4.  Hemispheric differences in the control of limb dynamics: a link between arm performance asymmetries and arm selection patterns.

Authors:  Chase J Coelho; Andrzej Przybyla; Vivek Yadav; Robert L Sainburg
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2012-11-14       Impact factor: 2.714

5.  Is Hand Selection Modulated by Cognitive-perceptual Load?

Authors:  Jiali Liang; Krista Wilkinson; Robert L Sainburg
Journal:  Neuroscience       Date:  2017-11-10       Impact factor: 3.590

6.  The reliability of side to side measurements of upper extremity activity levels in healthy subjects.

Authors:  Miguel Acuna; Tal Amasay; Andrew R Karduna
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2010-07-22       Impact factor: 2.362

7.  Motor asymmetry in elite fencers.

Authors:  Selcuk Akpinar; Robert L Sainburg; Sadettin Kirazci; Andrzej Przybyla
Journal:  J Mot Behav       Date:  2014-12-12       Impact factor: 1.328

8.  Sensorimotor performance asymmetries predict hand selection.

Authors:  A Przybyla; C J Coelho; S Akpinar; S Kirazci; R L Sainburg
Journal:  Neuroscience       Date:  2012-10-27       Impact factor: 3.590

9.  Effect of reinforcement history on hand choice in an unconstrained reaching task.

Authors:  Rebecca H Stoloff; Jordan A Taylor; Jing Xu; Arne Ridderikhoff; Richard B Ivry
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2011-03-23       Impact factor: 4.677

10.  Mental representation of arm motion dynamics in children and adolescents.

Authors:  Lionel Crognier; Xanthi Skoura; Annie Vinter; Charalambos Papaxanthis
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-08-29       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.