Literature DB >> 17611744

Greater reliance on impedance control in the nondominant arm compared with the dominant arm when adapting to a novel dynamic environment.

Christopher N Schabowsky1, Joseph M Hidler, Peter S Lum.   

Abstract

This study investigated differences in adaptation to a novel dynamic environment between the dominant and nondominant arms in 16 naive, right-handed, neurologically intact subjects. Subjects held onto the handle of a robotic manipulandum and executed reaching movements within a horizontal plane following a pseudo-random sequence of targets. Curl field perturbations were imposed by the robot motors, and we compared the rate and quality of adaptation between dominant and nondominant arms. During the early phase of the adaptation time course, the rate of motor adaptation between both arms was similar, but the mean peak and figural error of the nondominant arm were significantly smaller than those of the dominant arm. Also, the nondominant limb's aftereffects were significantly smaller than in the dominant arm. Thus, the controller of the nondominant limb appears to have relied on impedance control to a greater degree than the dominant limb when adapting to a novel dynamic environment. The results of this study imply that there are differences in dynamic adaptation between an individual's two arms.

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17611744     DOI: 10.1007/s00221-007-1017-x

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


  39 in total

1.  Differences in control of limb dynamics during dominant and nondominant arm reaching.

Authors:  R L Sainburg; D Kalakanis
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 2.714

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.  Impedance control and internal model formation when reaching in a randomly varying dynamical environment.

Authors:  C D Takahashi; R A Scheidt; D J Reinkensmeyer
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 2.714

4.  Handedness: dominant arm advantages in control of limb dynamics.

Authors:  Leia B Bagesteiro; Robert L Sainburg
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 2.714

5.  Is interlimb transfer of force-field adaptation a cognitive response to the sudden introduction of load?

Authors:  Nicole Malfait; David J Ostry
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2004-09-15       Impact factor: 6.167

6.  Adaptation to stable and unstable dynamics achieved by combined impedance control and inverse dynamics model.

Authors:  David W Franklin; Rieko Osu; Etienne Burdet; Mitsuo Kawato; Theodore E Milner
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 2.714

7.  Impedance control and internal model use during the initial stage of adaptation to novel dynamics in humans.

Authors:  Theodore E Milner; David W Franklin
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  2005-06-16       Impact factor: 5.182

8.  Human arm stiffness characteristics during the maintenance of posture.

Authors:  T Flash; F Mussa-Ivaldi
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  1990       Impact factor: 1.972

9.  Reach adaptation and final position control amid environmental uncertainty after stroke.

Authors:  Robert A Scheidt; Tina Stoeckmann
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2007-01-31       Impact factor: 2.714

10.  Hemiparetic stroke impairs anticipatory control of arm movement.

Authors:  Craig D Takahashi; David J Reinkensmeyer
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2003-01-30       Impact factor: 1.972

View more
  30 in total

1.  Intermanual transfer characteristics of dynamic learning: direction, coordinate frame, and consolidation of interlimb generalization.

Authors:  Christian Stockinger; Benjamin Thürer; Anne Focke; Thorsten Stein
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2015-09-30       Impact factor: 2.714

2.  Proprioceptive feedback during point-to-point arm movements is tuned to the expected dynamics of the task.

Authors:  Mark B Shapiro; Chuanxin M Niu; Cynthia Poon; Fabian J David; Daniel M Corcos
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2009-05-12       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  Limitations on coupling of bimanual movements caused by arm dominance: when the muscle homology principle fails.

Authors:  Natalia Dounskaia; Keith G Nogueira; Stephan P Swinnen; Elizabeth Drummond
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2010-01-13       Impact factor: 2.714

4.  Motor lateralization is characterized by a serial hybrid control scheme.

Authors:  V Yadav; R L Sainburg
Journal:  Neuroscience       Date:  2011-08-25       Impact factor: 3.590

5.  Hemispheric specialization for movement control produces dissociable differences in online corrections after stroke.

Authors:  Sydney Y Schaefer; Pratik K Mutha; Kathleen Y Haaland; Robert L Sainburg
Journal:  Cereb Cortex       Date:  2011-08-30       Impact factor: 5.357

6.  Transfer of dynamic motor skills acquired during isometric training to free motion.

Authors:  Alejandro Melendez-Calderon; Michael Tan; Moria Fisher Bittmann; Etienne Burdet; James L Patton
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2017-03-29       Impact factor: 2.714

Review 7.  The effects of brain lateralization on motor control and adaptation.

Authors:  Pratik K Mutha; Kathleen Y Haaland; Robert L Sainburg
Journal:  J Mot Behav       Date:  2012       Impact factor: 1.328

8.  Lateralized motor control processes determine asymmetry of interlimb transfer.

Authors:  Robert L Sainburg; Sydney Y Schaefer; Vivek Yadav
Journal:  Neuroscience       Date:  2016-08-02       Impact factor: 3.590

9.  Feedforward compensation for novel dynamics depends on force field orientation but is similar for the left and right arms.

Authors:  Eva-Maria Reuter; Ross Cunnington; Jason B Mattingley; Stephan Riek; Timothy J Carroll
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2016-08-31       Impact factor: 2.714

10.  Hemispheric specialization and functional impact of ipsilesional deficits in movement coordination and accuracy.

Authors:  Sydney Y Schaefer; Kathleen Y Haaland; Robert L Sainburg
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2009-06-30       Impact factor: 3.139

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.