Literature DB >> 23111126

Sensorimotor performance asymmetries predict hand selection.

A Przybyla1, C J Coelho, S Akpinar, S Kirazci, R L Sainburg.   

Abstract

Handedness is most often measured by questionnaires that assess an individual's preference for using a particular hand to perform a variety of tasks. While such assessments have proved reliable, they do not address the underlying neurobehavioral processes that give rise to the choice of which hand to use. Recent research has indicated that handedness is associated with hemispheric specializations for different aspects of sensorimotor performance. We now hypothesize that an individual's choice of which hand to use for a given task should result from an interaction between these underlying neurobehavioral asymmetries with task conditions. We test this hypothesis by manipulating two factors in targeted reaching movements: (1) region of workspace and (2) visual feedback conditions. The first manipulation modified the geometric and dynamic requirements of the task for each arm, whereas the second modified the sensorimotor performance asymmetries, an effect predicted by previous literature. We expected that arm choice would be reflected by an interaction between these factors. Our results indicated that removing visual feedback both improved the relative performance of the non-dominant arm and increased the choice to use this arm for targets near midline, an effect that was enhanced for targets requiring larger movement amplitudes. We explain these findings in the context of the dynamic dominance hypothesis of handedness and discuss their implications for the link between hemispheric asymmetries in neural control and hand preference.
Copyright © 2012 IBRO. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23111126      PMCID: PMC3714798          DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2012.10.046

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neuroscience        ISSN: 0306-4522            Impact factor:   3.590


  75 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.  Imagined and actual limb selection: a test of preference.

Authors:  C Gabbard; C Rabb
Journal:  Brain Cogn       Date:  2001 Jun-Jul       Impact factor: 2.310

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.  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

6.  Muscle activation patterns during two types of voluntary single-joint movement.

Authors:  G L Gottlieb
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 2.714

7.  Measuring handedness with questionnaires.

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

8.  On the voluntary movement of compliant (inertial-viscoelastic) loads by parcellated control mechanisms.

Authors:  G L Gottlieb
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  1996-11       Impact factor: 2.714

9.  Manual asymmetries in visually directed aiming.

Authors:  E A Roy; D Elliott
Journal:  Can J Psychol       Date:  1986-06

10.  A classification of hand preference by association analysis.

Authors:  M Annett
Journal:  Br J Psychol       Date:  1970-08
View more
  24 in total

1.  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

2.  Effort, success, and nonuse determine arm choice.

Authors:  Nicolas Schweighofer; Yupeng Xiao; Sujin Kim; Toshinori Yoshioka; James Gordon; Rieko Osu
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2015-05-06       Impact factor: 2.714

3.  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

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.  Asymmetric balance control between legs for quiet but not for perturbed stance.

Authors:  Osvaldo Vieira; Daniel Boari Coelho; Luis Augusto Teixeira
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2014-06-24       Impact factor: 1.972

6.  Interlimb differences in coordination of unsupported reaching movements.

Authors:  Jacob E Schaffer; Robert L Sainburg
Journal:  Neuroscience       Date:  2017-03-24       Impact factor: 3.590

7.  The probability of choosing both hands depends on an interaction between motor capacity and limb-specific control in chronic stroke.

Authors:  Rini Varghese; Jason J Kutch; Nicolas Schweighofer; Carolee J Winstein
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2020-09-03       Impact factor: 1.972

8.  Contralesional Arm Preference Depends on Hemisphere of Damage and Target Location in Unilateral Stroke Patients.

Authors:  Saandeep Mani; Andrzej Przybyla; David C Good; Kathleen Y Haaland; Robert L Sainburg
Journal:  Neurorehabil Neural Repair       Date:  2014-02-11       Impact factor: 3.919

9.  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

10.  Interlimb differences in coordination of rapid wrist/forearm movements.

Authors:  Gautum A Srinivasan; Tarika Embar; Robert Sainburg
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2020-02-14       Impact factor: 1.972

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.