Differentiating between two models of motor lateralization

Britne A. Shabbott, Robert L. Sainburg

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

43 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This study was designed to differentiate between two models of motor lateralization: "feedback corrections" and dynamic dominance. Whereas the feedback correction hypothesis suggests that handedness reflects a dominant hemisphere advantage for visual-mediated correction processes, dynamic dominance proposes that each hemisphere has become specialized for distinct aspects of control. This model suggests that the dominant hemisphere is specialized for controlling task dynamics, as required for coordinating efficient trajectories, and the nondominant hemisphere is specialized for controlling limb impedance, as required for maintaining stable postures. To differentiate between these two models, we examined whether visuomotor corrections are mediated differently for the nondominant and dominant arms. Participants performed targeted reaches in a virtual reality environment in which visuomotor rotations occurred in two directions that elicited corrections with different coordination requirements. The feedback correction model predicts a dominant arm advantage for the timing and accuracy of corrections in both directions. Dynamic dominance predicts that correction timing and accuracy will be similar for both arms, but that interlimb differences in the quality of corrections will depend on the coordination requirements, and thus, direction of corrections. Our results indicated that correction time and accuracy did not depend on arm. However, correction quality, as reflected by trajectory curvature, depended on both arm and rotation direction. Nondominant trajectories were systematically more curvilinear than dominant trajectories for corrections with the highest coordination requirement. These results support the dynamic dominance hypothesis.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)565-575
Number of pages11
JournalJournal of neurophysiology
Volume100
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 1 2008

Fingerprint

Arm
Functional Laterality
Posture
Electric Impedance
Extremities
Direction compound

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Neuroscience(all)
  • Physiology

Cite this

@article{ad9d7f215b8b4922bcb0034d6372c5b1,
title = "Differentiating between two models of motor lateralization",
abstract = "This study was designed to differentiate between two models of motor lateralization: {"}feedback corrections{"} and dynamic dominance. Whereas the feedback correction hypothesis suggests that handedness reflects a dominant hemisphere advantage for visual-mediated correction processes, dynamic dominance proposes that each hemisphere has become specialized for distinct aspects of control. This model suggests that the dominant hemisphere is specialized for controlling task dynamics, as required for coordinating efficient trajectories, and the nondominant hemisphere is specialized for controlling limb impedance, as required for maintaining stable postures. To differentiate between these two models, we examined whether visuomotor corrections are mediated differently for the nondominant and dominant arms. Participants performed targeted reaches in a virtual reality environment in which visuomotor rotations occurred in two directions that elicited corrections with different coordination requirements. The feedback correction model predicts a dominant arm advantage for the timing and accuracy of corrections in both directions. Dynamic dominance predicts that correction timing and accuracy will be similar for both arms, but that interlimb differences in the quality of corrections will depend on the coordination requirements, and thus, direction of corrections. Our results indicated that correction time and accuracy did not depend on arm. However, correction quality, as reflected by trajectory curvature, depended on both arm and rotation direction. Nondominant trajectories were systematically more curvilinear than dominant trajectories for corrections with the highest coordination requirement. These results support the dynamic dominance hypothesis.",
author = "Shabbott, {Britne A.} and Sainburg, {Robert L.}",
year = "2008",
month = "8",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1152/jn.90349.2008",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "100",
pages = "565--575",
journal = "Journal of Neurophysiology",
issn = "0022-3077",
publisher = "American Physiological Society",
number = "2",

}

Differentiating between two models of motor lateralization. / Shabbott, Britne A.; Sainburg, Robert L.

In: Journal of neurophysiology, Vol. 100, No. 2, 01.08.2008, p. 565-575.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Differentiating between two models of motor lateralization

AU - Shabbott, Britne A.

AU - Sainburg, Robert L.

PY - 2008/8/1

Y1 - 2008/8/1

N2 - This study was designed to differentiate between two models of motor lateralization: "feedback corrections" and dynamic dominance. Whereas the feedback correction hypothesis suggests that handedness reflects a dominant hemisphere advantage for visual-mediated correction processes, dynamic dominance proposes that each hemisphere has become specialized for distinct aspects of control. This model suggests that the dominant hemisphere is specialized for controlling task dynamics, as required for coordinating efficient trajectories, and the nondominant hemisphere is specialized for controlling limb impedance, as required for maintaining stable postures. To differentiate between these two models, we examined whether visuomotor corrections are mediated differently for the nondominant and dominant arms. Participants performed targeted reaches in a virtual reality environment in which visuomotor rotations occurred in two directions that elicited corrections with different coordination requirements. The feedback correction model predicts a dominant arm advantage for the timing and accuracy of corrections in both directions. Dynamic dominance predicts that correction timing and accuracy will be similar for both arms, but that interlimb differences in the quality of corrections will depend on the coordination requirements, and thus, direction of corrections. Our results indicated that correction time and accuracy did not depend on arm. However, correction quality, as reflected by trajectory curvature, depended on both arm and rotation direction. Nondominant trajectories were systematically more curvilinear than dominant trajectories for corrections with the highest coordination requirement. These results support the dynamic dominance hypothesis.

AB - This study was designed to differentiate between two models of motor lateralization: "feedback corrections" and dynamic dominance. Whereas the feedback correction hypothesis suggests that handedness reflects a dominant hemisphere advantage for visual-mediated correction processes, dynamic dominance proposes that each hemisphere has become specialized for distinct aspects of control. This model suggests that the dominant hemisphere is specialized for controlling task dynamics, as required for coordinating efficient trajectories, and the nondominant hemisphere is specialized for controlling limb impedance, as required for maintaining stable postures. To differentiate between these two models, we examined whether visuomotor corrections are mediated differently for the nondominant and dominant arms. Participants performed targeted reaches in a virtual reality environment in which visuomotor rotations occurred in two directions that elicited corrections with different coordination requirements. The feedback correction model predicts a dominant arm advantage for the timing and accuracy of corrections in both directions. Dynamic dominance predicts that correction timing and accuracy will be similar for both arms, but that interlimb differences in the quality of corrections will depend on the coordination requirements, and thus, direction of corrections. Our results indicated that correction time and accuracy did not depend on arm. However, correction quality, as reflected by trajectory curvature, depended on both arm and rotation direction. Nondominant trajectories were systematically more curvilinear than dominant trajectories for corrections with the highest coordination requirement. These results support the dynamic dominance hypothesis.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=55249084169&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=55249084169&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1152/jn.90349.2008

DO - 10.1152/jn.90349.2008

M3 - Article

C2 - 18497366

AN - SCOPUS:55249084169

VL - 100

SP - 565

EP - 575

JO - Journal of Neurophysiology

JF - Journal of Neurophysiology

SN - 0022-3077

IS - 2

ER -