Literature DB >> 15316705

Between-trial inhibition and facilitation in goal-directed aiming: manual and spatial asymmetries.

Luc Tremblay1, Timothy N Welsh, Digby Elliott.   

Abstract

Three experiments were conducted with right-handed participants to examine between-trial inhibition and facilitation effects in goal-directed aiming. Participants were required to execute rapid left-hand or right-hand aiming movements upon illumination of a target light in left or right space. Thus, from trial to trial, participants executed movements to either the same target location or a different target location with the either same hand or the other hand. Our reaction time results indicated that participants were particularly slow in initiating their movements when they were required to return to the same target location with the other hand. This was especially the case when the right hand was required to move to a target just occupied by the left hand. For both reaction time and movement time the right hand but not the left hand exhibited an advantage when it was required to perform the same movement two times in a row. Taken together these results suggest that inhibition of return, in a target-target paradigm, is more associated with the particular spatial location of the target than the organization of a specific movement to that location. Moreover, the between-trial facilitation observed for the right hand may reflect the ability of the left cerebral hemisphere to maintain an already parameterized motor program over a short intertrial interval.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15316705     DOI: 10.1007/s00221-004-1987-x

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


  26 in total

1.  Hemispheric asymmetries in vigilance and cerebral arousal mechanisms in younger and older adults.

Authors:  B J Cherry; J B Hellige
Journal:  Neuropsychology       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 3.295

2.  Evidence for a dynamic-dominance hypothesis of handedness.

Authors:  Robert L Sainburg
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2001-11-22       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  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

4.  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

5.  Inhibition of return in a selective reaching task: an investigation of reference frames.

Authors:  L A Howard; J Lupiáñez; S P Tipper
Journal:  J Gen Psychol       Date:  1999-10

Review 6.  Exploring the consequences of the previous trial.

Authors:  Jillian H Fecteau; Douglas P Munoz
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurosci       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 34.870

7.  The contribution of general and specific motor inhibitory sets to the so-called auditory inhibition of return.

Authors:  G Tassinari; D Campara; C Benedetti; G Berlucchi
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2002-09-05       Impact factor: 1.972

8.  The effects of practice on object-based, location-based, and static-display inhibition of return.

Authors:  B Weaver; J Lupiáñez; F L Watson
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1998-08

9.  Auditory and audiovisual inhibition of return.

Authors:  C Spence; J Driver
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1998-01

10.  Measuring handedness with questionnaires.

Authors:  M P Bryden
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  1977       Impact factor: 3.139

View more
  9 in total

1.  Hemispheric asymmetries of motor versus nonmotor processes during (visuo)motor control.

Authors:  Dorothée V Callaert; Katrien Vercauteren; Ronald Peeters; Fred Tam; Simon Graham; Stephan P Swinnen; Stefan Sunaert; Nicole Wenderoth
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2010-08-02       Impact factor: 5.038

2.  Rightward biases during bimanual reaching.

Authors:  Gavin Buckingham; David P Carey
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2009-01-13       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  Effector mass and trajectory optimization in the online regulation of goal-directed movement.

Authors:  James J Burkitt; Victoria Staite; Afrisa Yeung; Digby Elliott; James L Lyons
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2015-01-08       Impact factor: 1.972

Review 4.  Visual attention and action: How cueing, direct mapping, and social interactions drive orienting.

Authors:  Mark A Atkinson; Andrew A Simpson; Geoff G Cole
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2018-10

5.  Response-specific effects in a joint action task: social inhibition of return effects do not emerge when observed and executed actions are different.

Authors:  Joseph Manzone; Geoff G Cole; Paul A Skarratt; Timothy N Welsh
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2016-08-16

6.  Inhibition of return in cue-target and target-target tasks.

Authors:  Timothy N Welsh; Jay Pratt
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2006-04-08       Impact factor: 1.972

7.  Between-person effects on attention and action: Joe and Fred revisited.

Authors:  Spencer J Hayes; Steve Hansen; Digby Elliott
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2009-07-15

8.  The Gambler's Fallacy: A Basic Inhibitory Process?

Authors:  James Lyons; Daniel J Weeks; Digby Elliott
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2013-02-20

9.  Distractor interference during a choice limb reaching task.

Authors:  Matthew Ray; Daniel Weeks; Timothy N Welsh
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-01-17       Impact factor: 3.240

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.