Literature DB >> 28250146

Decisions in motion: passive body acceleration modulates hand choice.

Romy S Bakker1, Roel H A Weijer2,3, Robert J van Beers2,3, Luc P J Selen2, W Pieter Medendorp2.   

Abstract

In everyday life, we frequently have to decide which hand to use for a certain action. It has been suggested that for this decision the brain calculates expected costs based on action values, such as expected biomechanical costs, expected success rate, handedness, and skillfulness. Although these conclusions were based on experiments in stationary subjects, we often act while the body is in motion. We investigated how hand choice is affected by passive body motion, which directly affects the biomechanical costs of the arm movement due to its inertia. With the use of a linear motion platform, 12 right-handed subjects were sinusoidally translated (0.625 and 0.5 Hz). At 8 possible motion phases, they had to reach, using either their left or right hand, to a target presented at 1 of 11 possible locations. We predicted hand choice by calculating the expected biomechanical costs under different assumptions about the future acceleration involved in these computations, being the forthcoming acceleration during the reach, the instantaneous acceleration at target onset, or zero acceleration as if the body were stationary. Although hand choice was generally biased to use of the dominant hand, it also modulated sinusoidally with the motion, with the amplitude of the bias depending on the motion's peak acceleration. The phase of hand choice modulation was consistent with the cost model that took the instantaneous acceleration signal at target onset. This suggests that the brain relies on the bottom-up acceleration signals, and not on predictions about future accelerations, when deciding on hand choice during passive whole body motion.NEW & NOTEWORTHY Decisions of hand choice are a fundamental aspect of human behavior. Whereas these decisions are typically studied in stationary subjects, this study examines hand choice while subjects are in motion. We show that accelerations of the body, which differentially modulate the biomechanical costs of left and right hand movements, are also taken into account when deciding which hand to use for a reach, possibly based on bottom-up processing of the otolith signal.
Copyright © 2017 the American Physiological Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  biomechanical cost; decision making; hand choice; self-motion; vestibular system

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28250146      PMCID: PMC5461666          DOI: 10.1152/jn.00022.2017

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurophysiol        ISSN: 0022-3077            Impact factor:   2.714


  33 in total

1.  Task complexity and limb selection in reaching.

Authors:  Carl Gabbard; Mike Tapia; Casi Rabb Helbig
Journal:  Int J Neurosci       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 2.292

2.  Integration of target and effector information in the human brain during reach planning.

Authors:  S M Beurze; F P de Lange; I Toni; W P Medendorp
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2006-08-23       Impact factor: 2.714

3.  Immediate compensation for variations in self-generated Coriolis torques related to body dynamics and carried objects.

Authors:  Pascale Pigeon; Paul Dizio; James R Lackner
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2013-06-26       Impact factor: 2.714

4.  Inference of perceptual priors from path dynamics of passive self-motion.

Authors:  Mario Prsa; Danilo Jimenez-Rezende; Olaf Blanke
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2014-12-10       Impact factor: 2.714

5.  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

6.  The coordination of arm movements: an experimentally confirmed mathematical model.

Authors:  T Flash; N Hogan
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  1985-07       Impact factor: 6.167

7.  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

8.  A Representation of Effort in Decision-Making and Motor Control.

Authors:  Reza Shadmehr; Helen J Huang; Alaa A Ahmed
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2016-06-30       Impact factor: 10.834

9.  Stability of Phase Relationships While Coordinating Arm Reaches with Whole Body Motion.

Authors:  Romy S Bakker; Luc P J Selen; W Pieter Medendorp
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-12-31       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Different strategy of hand choice after learning of constant and incremental dynamical perturbation in arm reaching.

Authors:  Chie Habagishi; Shoko Kasuga; Yohei Otaka; Meigen Liu; Junichi Ushiba
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2014-02-24       Impact factor: 3.169

View more
  2 in total

1.  Perceived effort affects choice of limb and reaction time of movements.

Authors:  Jing Wang; Peter S Lum; Reza Shadmehr; Sang Wook Lee
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2020-11-04       Impact factor: 2.714

2.  Hand choice is unaffected by high frequency continuous theta burst transcranial magnetic stimulation to the posterior parietal cortex.

Authors:  Aoife M Fitzpatrick; Neil M Dundon; Kenneth F Valyear
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-10-13       Impact factor: 3.752

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.