Abstract

The relationship between handedness, laterality, and inhibitory control is a valuable benchmark for testing the hypothesis of the right-hemispheric specialization of inhibition. According to this theory, and given that to stop a limb movement, it is sufficient to alter the activity of the contralateral hemisphere, then suppressing a left arm movement should be faster than suppressing a right-arm movement. This is because, in the latter case, inhibitory commands produced in the right hemisphere should be sent to the other hemisphere. Further, as lateralization of cognitive functions in left-handers is less pronounced than in right-handers, in the former, the inhibitory control should rely on both hemispheres. We tested these predictions on a medium-large sample of left- and right-handers (n = 52). Each participant completed two sessions of the reaching versions of the stop-signal task, one using the right arm and one using the left arm. We found that reactive and proactive inhibition do not differ according to handedness. However, we found a significant advantage of the right versus the left arm in canceling movements outright. By contrast, there were no differences in proactive inhibition. As we also found that participants performed movements faster with the right than with the left arm, we interpret our results in light of the dominant role of the left hemisphere in some aspects of motor control.

Highlights

  • Flexible behavior critically depends on inhibitory control [1]

  • The staircase algorithm worked well for all groups (P(failure), two-tailed t-test; t(50) = −0.79, p = 0.43). In both groups, reaction times (RT) of stop-failure trials were faster than no-stop trials as revealed a three-way mixed-design analysis of variance (ANOVA; Between-subject factor: Handedness (Left-handers, Right-handers); Withinsubject factor: Reaching Arm (Left arm, Right arm); Trial Type; Table 2)

  • The effect of the interaction between Trial Type and Reaching Arm was explained by the fact that the RTs of no-stop trials executed with a given arm were slower than the RTs of the stop-failure trials performed with the opposite arm

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Flexible behavior critically depends on inhibitory control [1]. Inhibition is a complex executive function with multiple components [2,3]. If a person is about to dive, but he/she suddenly sees a white shark’s fin, the ability to halt the ongoing action is vital. This form of motor inhibition is known as reactive inhibition, i.e., the ability to stop a response outright when a stop instruction is presented. If a person is walking along a trail in a forest inhabited by venomous snakes, he/she must carefully watch each step, slowing down his/her movement. This other form of motor inhibition is termed proactive inhibition. Impairments of the interplay between proactive and reactive inhibition often underpin disorders characterized by poor urge control

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

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 call