Handedness is a prominent behavioral phenomenon that emerges from asymmetrical neural organization of human motor systems. However, the aspects of motor performance that correspond to handedness remain largely undetermined. A recent study examining interlimb differences in coordination of reaching demonstrated dominant arm advantages in controlling limb segment inertial dynamics (Sainburg and Kalakanis 2000). Based on these findings, I now propose the dynamic-dominance hypothesis, which states that the essential factor that distinguishes dominant from nondominant arm performance is the facility governing the control of limb dynamics. The purpose of this study is to test two predictions of this hypothesis: 1) adaptation to novel intersegmental dynamics, requiring the development of new dynamic transforms, should be more effective for the dominant arm; 2) there should be no difference in adapting to visuomotor rotations performed with the dominant as compared with the nondominant arm. The latter prediction is based on the idea that visual information about target position is translated into an internal reference frame prior to transformation of the movement plan into dynamic properties, which reflect the forces required to produce movement. To test these predictions, dominant arm adaptation is compared to nondominant arm adaptation during exposure to novel inertial loads and to novel visuomotor rotations. The results indicate substantial interlimb differences in adaptation to novel inertial dynamics, but equivalent adaptation to novel visuomotor rotations. Inverse dynamic analysis revealed better coordination of dominant arm muscle torques across both shoulder and elbow joints, as compared with nondominant arm muscle torques. As a result, dominant arm movements were produced with a fraction of the mean squared muscle torque computed for nondominant arm movements made at similar speeds. These results support the dynamic-dominance hypothesis, indicating that interlimb asymmetries in control arise downstream to visuomotor transformations, when dynamic variables that correspond to the forces required for motion are specified.

1. We recently showed that patients lacking proprioceptive input from their limbs have particular difficulty performing multijoint movements. In a pantomimed slicing gesture requiring sharp reversals in hand path direction, patients showed large hand path distortions at movement reversals because of failure to coordinate the timing of the separate reversals at the shoulder and elbow joints. We hypothesized that these reversal errors resulted from uncompensated effects of inertial interactions produced by changes in shoulder joint acceleration that were transferred to the elbow. We now test this hypothesis and examine the role of proprioceptive input by comparing the motor performance of five normal subjects with that of two patients with large-fiber sensory neuropathy. 2. Subjects were to trace each of six template lines presented randomly on a computer screen by straight overlapping out-and-back movements of the hand on a digitizing tablet. The lines originated from a common starting position but were in different directions and had different lengths. Directions and lengths were adjusted so that tracing movements would all require the same elbow excursion, whereas shoulder excursion would vary. The effects of varying interaction torques on elbow kinematics were then studied. The subject's dominant arm was supported in the horizontal plane by a low-inertia brace equipped with ball bearing joints and potentiometers under the elbow and shoulder. Hand position was monitored by a magnetic pen attached to the brace 1 cm above a digitizing tablet and could be displayed as a screen cursor. Vision of the subject's arm was blocked and the screen cursor was blanked at movement onset to prevent visual feedback during movement. Elbow joint torques were calculated from joint angle recordings and compared with electromyographic recordings of elbow joint musculature. 3. In control subjects, outward and inward paths were straight and overlapped the template lines regardless of their direction. As prescribed by the task, elbow kinematics remained the same across movement directions, whereas interaction torques varied substantially. The timing of the onsets of biceps activity and the offsets of triceps activity during elbow flexion varied systematically with direction-dependent changes in interaction torques. Controls exploited or dampened these interaction torques as needed to meet the kinematic demands of the task. 4. In contrast, the patients made characteristic errors at movement reversals that increased systematically across movement directions. These reversal errors resulted from improper timing of elbow and shoulder joint reversals.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

This study compares the coordination patterns employed for the left and right arms during rapid targeted reaching movements. Six right-handed subjects reached to each of three targets, designed to elicit progressively greater amplitude interaction torques at the elbow joint. All targets required the same elbow excursion (20 degrees ), but different shoulder excursions (5, 10, and 15 degrees, respectively). Movements were restricted to the shoulder and elbow and supported on a horizontal plane by a frictionless air-jet system. Subjects received visual feedback only of the final hand position with respect to the start and target locations. For motivation, points were awarded based on final position accuracy for movements completed within an interval of 400-600 ms. For all subjects, the right and left hands showed a similar time course of improvement in final position accuracy over repeated trials. After task adaptation, final position accuracy was similar for both hands; however, the hand trajectories and joint coordination patterns during the movements were systematically different. Right hand paths showed medial to lateral curvatures that were consistent in magnitude for all target directions, whereas the left hand paths had lateral to medial curvatures that increased in magnitude across the three target directions. Inverse dynamic analysis revealed substantial differences in the coordination of muscle and intersegmental torques for the left and right arms. Although left elbow muscle torque contributed largely to elbow acceleration, right arm coordination was characterized by a proximal control strategy, in which movement of both joints was primarily driven by the effects of shoulder muscles. In addition, right hand path direction changes were independent of elbow interaction torque impulse, indicating skillful coordination of muscle actions with intersegmental dynamics. In contrast, left hand path direction changes varied directly with elbow interaction torque impulse. These findings strongly suggest that distinct neural control mechanisms are employed for dominant and non dominant arm movements. However, whether interlimb differences in neural strategies are a consequence of asymmetric use of the two arms, or vice versa, is not yet understood. The implications for neural organization of voluntary movement control are discussed.

Previous findings from our laboratory support the idea that the dominant arm is more proficient than the non-dominant arm in coordinating intersegmental dynamics for specifying trajectory direction and shape during multijoint reaching movements. We also showed that adaptation of right and left arms to novel visuomotor rotations was equivalent, suggesting that this process occurs upstream to processes that distinguish dominant and non-dominant arm performance. Because of this, we speculate that such visuomotor adaptations might transfer to subsequent performance during adaptation with the other arm. We now examine whether opposite arm training to novel visuomotor rotations transfers to affect adaptation using the right and left arms. Two subject groups, RL and LR, each comprising seven right-handed subjects, adapted to a 30 degrees counterclockwise rotation in the visual display during a center-out reaching task performed in eight directions. Each group first adapted using either the right (RL) or left (LR) arm, followed by opposite arm adaptation. In order to assess transfer, we compared the same side arm movements (either right or left) following opposite arm adaptation to those performed prior to opposite arm adaptation. Our findings indicate unambiguous transfer of learning across the arms. Different features of movement transferred in different directions: Opposite arm training improved the initial direction of right arm movements under the rotated visual condition, whereas opposite arm training improved the final position accuracy, but not the direction of left arm movements. These findings confirm that transfer of training was not due to a general cognitive strategy, since such an effect should influence either hand equally. These findings support the hypothesis that each arm controller has access to information learned during opposite arm training. We suggest that each controller uses this information differently, depending on its proficiency for specifying particular features of movement. We discuss evidence that these two aspects of control are differentially mediated by the right and left cerebral hemispheres.

Bagesteiro, Leia B. and Robert L. Sainburg. Handedness: dominant arm advantages in control of limb dynamics. J Neurophysiol 88: 2408 -2421, 2002; 10.1152/jn.00901.2001. Recent findings from our laboratory suggest that a major factor distinguishing dominant from nondominant arm performance is the ability by which the effects of intersegmental dynamics are controlled by the CNS. These studies indicated that the dominant arm reliably used more torque-efficient patterns for movements made with similar speeds and accuracy than nondominant arm movements. Whereas, nondominant hand-path curvatures systematically varied with the amplitude of the interaction torques transferred between the segments of the moving limb, dominant hand-path curvatures did not. However, our previous studies did not distinguish whether dominant arm coordination advantages emerged from more effective control of dynamic factors or were simply a secondary effect of planning different kinematics. The purpose of this study was to further investigate interlimb differences in coordination through analysis of inverse dynamics and electromyography recorded during the performance of reaching movements. By controlling the amplitude of intersegmental dynamics in the current study, we were able to assess whether systematic differences in torque-efficiency exist, even when differences in hand-path shape were minimal. Subject's arms were supported in the horizontal plane by a frictionless air-jet system and were constrained to movements about the shoulder and elbow joints. Two targets were designed, such that the interaction torques elicited at the elbow were either large or small. Our results showed that the former produced large differences in hand-path curvature, whereas the latter did not. Additionally, the movements with small differences in hand-path kinematics showed substantial differences in torque patterns and corresponding EMG profiles which implied a more torque-efficient strategy for the dominant arm. In view of these findings we propose that distinct neural control mechanisms are employed for dominant and nondominant arm movements. I N T R O D U C T I O NHandedness, the tendency to prefer the use of a consistent hand in performing selected tasks, is a prominent, yet poorly understood aspect of human motor performance. Whereas it is generally accepted that handedness results from differences in the neural control of each arm, the mechanisms responsible for these differences remain controversial. Previous studies examining handedness have quantified the reaction time, movement time, and final position accuracy of rapid aimed arm movements. Such performance measures were expected to differentiate "open-loop" mechanisms, which by definition are unaffected by sensory feedback, from "closed-loop" mechanisms, which by definition are mediated by sensory feedback. This division was inspired by the ideas of Woodworth (Woodworth 1899) and Fitts (Fitts 1966(Fitts , 1992Fitts and Radford 1966) and is supported by studies contrasting rapid aiming movements ma...