Year-end Sale % OFF 
Abstract
Performance of bimanual motor actions requires coordinated and integrated bilateral communication, but in some bimanual tasks, neural interactions and crosstalk might cause bilateral interference. The level of interference probably depends on the proportions of bilateral interneurons connecting homologous areas of the motor cortex in the two hemispheres. The neuromuscular system for proximal muscles has a higher number of bilateral interneurons connecting homologous areas of the motor cortex compared to distal muscles. Based on the differences in neurophysiological organization for proximal vs. distal effectors in the upper extremities, the purpose of the present experiment was to evaluate how the level of bilateral interference depends on whether the bilateral interference task is performed with homologous or non-homologous effectors as the primary task. Fourteen participants first performed a unilateral primary motor task with the dominant arm with (1) proximal and (2) distal controlled joysticks. Performance in the unilateral condition with the dominant arm was compared to the same effector’s performance when two different bilateral interference tasks were performed simultaneously with the non-dominant arm. The two different bilateral interference tasks were subdivided into (1) homologous and (2) non-homologous effectors. The results showed a significant decrease in performance for both proximal and distal controlled joysticks, and this effect was independent of whether the bilateral interference tasks were introduced with homologous or non-homologous effectors. The overall performance decrease as a result of bilateral interference was larger for proximal compared to distal controlled joysticks. Furthermore, a proximal bilateral interference caused a larger performance decrement independent of whether the primary motor task was controlled by a proximal or distal joystick. A novel finding was that the distal joystick performance equally interfered with either homologous (distal bilateral interference) or non-homologous (proximal bilateral interference) interference tasks performed simultaneously. The results indicate that the proximal–distal distinction is an important organismic constraint on motor control and for understanding bilateral communication and interference in general and, in particular, how bilateral interference caused by homologous vs. non-homologous effectors impacts motor performance for proximal and distal effectors. The results seem to map neuroanatomical and neurophysiological differences for these effectors.
Highlights
IntroductionThe control and coordination of various bimanual motor actions have interested researchers for decades, and several constraints have been proposed that affect bimanual motor actions (Kelso, 1984; Pashler, 1994; Swinnen, 2002; Wenderoth et al, 2003; Mechsner and Knoblich, 2004; Kolb and Whishaw, 2009; Swinnen and Gooijers, 2015)
Based on the presented considerations, the specific aim of the current study was to investigate how a joystick controlled by proximal or distal effectors performed with the dominant arm is interfered with by the introduction of a bilateral interference task performed with the non-dominant arm with either homologous or non-homologous effectors
Based on results from the previous studies with the same experimental task (Aune et al, 2017, 2020), it was estimated that this sample size was sufficient to achieve a power of 80%, a level of significance of 5%, and an effect size of 0.7 for detecting a main effect of proximal vs. distal effectors on task performance, absolute spatial error (ASE; see data analysis section) with repeated measures ANOVA
Summary
The control and coordination of various bimanual motor actions have interested researchers for decades, and several constraints have been proposed that affect bimanual motor actions (Kelso, 1984; Pashler, 1994; Swinnen, 2002; Wenderoth et al, 2003; Mechsner and Knoblich, 2004; Kolb and Whishaw, 2009; Swinnen and Gooijers, 2015). The predominant theoretical frameworks for understanding bimanual motor actions are from the motoric and neurophysiological approaches (Swinnen, 2002; Wenderoth et al, 2003), and from the perceptual and motor-planning processes (Mechsner and Knoblich, 2004; Swinnen and Gooijers, 2015). From a motoric and neurophysiological approach, bimanual motor actions require appropriate bilateral communication (Swinnen, 2002; Gooijers and Swinnen, 2014). Some motor actions require independent control and coordination between body sides, and in such bimanual tasks, coordination of inhibitory and excitatory neural crosstalk is detrimental for high performance. In some bimanual motor actions, neural crosstalk can cause bimanual interference of motor performance (e.g., Aune et al, 2020)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
