Literature DB >> 7546669

The preparation of aiming movements.

R G Carson1, R Chua, D Goodman, W D Byblow, D Elliott.   

Abstract

Three experiments are reported in which subjects made rapid aiming movements to visual targets with their left and right hands. In Experiments 1 and 3, a precue protocol was employed. In the "simple" reaction time condition, subjects were precued with complete information concerning the target position. In the four-choice condition, subjects were precued with partial information, indicating a subset of four possible target positions. In the eight-choice condition, advance information regarding the target position was entirely ambiguous. Results indicated that when subjects were provided with unspecific advance information concerning the position of the target, and thus were unable to partially prepare movements prior to the imperative stimulus, a left hand advantage for speed of initiation was obtained. When complete advance information was available, reaction times for the left and right hands were equivalent. The left hand advantage in choice conditions was eliminated when the accuracy of response execution was emphasized and subjects were afforded the opportunity for "on-line" preparation (Experiment 3). These data are discussed in relation to the role of the right hemisphere in the preparation of movement.

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7546669     DOI: 10.1006/brcg.1995.1161

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Brain Cogn        ISSN: 0278-2626            Impact factor:   2.310


  20 in total

1.  Interlimb differences in control of movement extent.

Authors:  Robert L Sainburg; Sydney Y Schaefer
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2004-04-28       Impact factor: 2.714

2.  The cost of moving with the left hand.

Authors:  Jonathan Vaughan; Deborah A Barany; Tristan Rios
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2012-05-24       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  Corticomotor excitability during a choice-hand reaction time task.

Authors:  Steven McMillan; Richard B Ivry; Winston D Byblow
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2006-01-20       Impact factor: 1.972

4.  Hand dominance and multi-finger synergies.

Authors:  Wei Zhang; Robert L Sainburg; Vladimir M Zatsiorsky; Mark L Latash
Journal:  Neurosci Lett       Date:  2006-10-02       Impact factor: 3.046

5.  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

6.  Hemispheric lateralization does not affect the cognitive and mechanical cost of a sequential motor task.

Authors:  Christoph Schütz; Thomas Schack
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2019-09-27       Impact factor: 1.972

7.  Manual asymmetries in grasp pre-shaping and transport-grasp coordination.

Authors:  Jarugool Tretriluxana; James Gordon; Carolee J Winstein
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2008-04-25       Impact factor: 1.972

8.  Does hand dominance affect the use of motor abundance when reaching to uncertain targets?

Authors:  Sandra Maria Sbeghen Ferreira Freitas; John Peter Scholz
Journal:  Hum Mov Sci       Date:  2009-02-23       Impact factor: 2.161

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.  The impact of head direction on lateralized choices of target and hand.

Authors:  Numa Dancause; Marc H Schieber
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2009-12-11       Impact factor: 1.972

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.