Literature DB >> 2259424

Abduction, adduction and hand differences in simple and serial movements.

J L Bradshaw1, J A Bradshaw, N C Nettleton.   

Abstract

Abductive or adductive movements were made either towards single targets left or right of "home", or sequentially from target to target with various levels of advance information. In the former situation the preferred hand completed responses (movement time, MT) faster than the non-preferred, while the non-preferred hand initiated them faster (reaction time, RT); these effects were in both cases stronger with harder (knob turn) than with easier (touch) responses. Abductive responses (MTs, not RTs) were faster than adductive, especially with the preferred right hand. However in the sequential task adductive responses were the faster, consistently so by MTs, while with respect to time spent motionless at each target (down time, DT) more so with the non-preferred hand, and under conditions of maximal advance information. Findings were discussed in the contexts of movement complexity, hemispatial representation, and how advance information may be utilized in the resolution of directional uncertainty. There may be an evolutionary advantage in making complex manipulative responses adductively, close to the body, while reaches are usually made abductively, to the periphery of circumcorporeal space.

Mesh:

Year:  1990        PMID: 2259424     DOI: 10.1016/0028-3932(90)90108-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neuropsychologia        ISSN: 0028-3932            Impact factor:   3.139


  11 in total

Review 1.  Stimulus and response representations underlying orthogonal stimulus-response compatibility effects.

Authors:  Yang Seok Cho; Robert W Proctor
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2003-03

2.  Handedness and index finger movements performed on a small touchscreen.

Authors:  Tomoko Aoki; Gil Rivlis; Marc H Schieber
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2015-12-16       Impact factor: 2.714

3.  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

4.  Movement structure in young and elderly adults during goal-directed movements of the left and right arm.

Authors:  Brach Poston; Arend W A Van Gemmert; Beth Barduson; George E Stelmach
Journal:  Brain Cogn       Date:  2008-06-16       Impact factor: 2.310

5.  Symmetry, broken symmetry, and handedness in bimanual coordination dynamics.

Authors:  P J Treffner; M T Turvey
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 1.972

6.  Reaching to ipsilateral or contralateral targets: within-hemisphere visuomotor processing cannot explain hemispatial differences in motor control.

Authors:  D P Carey; E L Hargreaves; M A Goodale
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  1996-12       Impact factor: 1.972

7.  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

8.  Functional asymmetries in the movement kinematics of patients with Tourette's syndrome.

Authors:  N Georgiou; J L Bradshaw; J G Phillips; R Cunnington; M Rogers
Journal:  J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry       Date:  1997-08       Impact factor: 10.154

9.  Laterality of expression in portraiture: putting your best cheek forward.

Authors:  M E Nicholls; D Clode; S J Wood; A G Wood
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  1999-08-07       Impact factor: 5.349

10.  Cue dependent right hemineglect in schizophrenia: a kinematic analysis.

Authors:  M E Downing; J G Phillips; J L Bradshaw; K S Vaddadi; C Pantelis
Journal:  J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 10.154

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.