Bimanual force control: cooperation and interference?

Kennedy, Deanna M.; Boyle, Jason B.; Wang, Chaoyi; Shea, Charles H.

doi:10.1007/s00426-014-0637-6

Cited by 24 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 81 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It should be noted that constraints related to crossed and uncrossed neural pathways should affect to varying extents all iso-and poly-rhythmic bimanual coordination patterns except the in-phase 1:1 coordination pattern. Kennedy, Boyle, Wang, and Shea (2015b) designed a series of experiments to determine the level of cooperation or interference observed from the forces generated in one limb on the forces produced by the contralateral limb when one or both limbs were producing a constant force (Experiment 1), one limb was producing a dynamic force while the other limb was producing a constant force (Experiment 2), and both limbs were producing dynamic force patterns (Experiment 3). The results for both Experiments 1 and 2 showed relatively strong positive time series cross-correlations between the left and right limb forces indicating that an increase or decrease in the force generated by one limb resulted in corresponding changes in the force produced by the homologous muscles of the contralateral limb.…”

Section: Action Constraintsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perception and action influences on discrete and reciprocal bimanual coordination

2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For nearly four decades bimanual coordination, Ba prototype of complex motor skills^and apparent Bwindow into the design of the brain,^has been intensively studied. Past research has focused on describing and modeling the constraints that allow the production of some coordination patterns while limiting effective performance of other bimanual coordination patterns. More recently researchers have identified a coalition of perception-action constraints that hinder the effective production of bimanual skills. The result has been that given specially designed contexts where one or more of these constraints are minimized, bimanual skills once thought difficult, if not impossible, to effectively produce without very extensive practice can be executed effectively with little or no practice. The challenge is to understand how these contextual constraints interact to allow or inhibit the production of complex bimanual coordination skills. In addition, the factors affecting the stability of bimanual coordination tasks needs to be re-conceptualized in terms of perception-related constraints arising from the environmental context in which performance is conducted and action constraints resident in the neuromotor system.

show abstract

Section: Action Constraintsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perception and action influences on discrete and reciprocal bimanual coordination

2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, evidence from patients with stroke revealed that motor overflow between hemispheres would alter the independence of force production between the two hands (Kim et al, 2015; Seo, 2013). Previous studies have extensively explored that, during bimanual coordination control, interactions through the corpus callosum (Diedrichsen, Hazeltine, Nurss, & Ivry, 2003; Gooijers & Swinnen, 2014), neural crosstalk, and co-activation of homologous muscles (Kennedy, Boyle, Wang, & Shea, 2016) might in part account for the independence between the force production of the hands. These studies suggested that bimanual activities are vulnerable to interference, and are not totally independent of each other.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Motor control strategies during bimanual isometric force control among healthy individuals

Yan

Kim

et al. 2019

Adaptive Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to provide a basic description of the motor control strategy during bimanual isometric force control in healthy young adults. Thirty healthy young adults (mean age: 27.4 6 3.7 years) participated in the study. The subjects were instructed to press both hands simultaneously to match the target force level of 5%, 25%, and 50% bimanual maximum voluntary force using continuous visual feedback. Bimanual motor synergy and bimanual coordination, as well as force asymmetry, force accuracy, and force variability were compared. This study identified the specific motor control strategy of healthy young adults during bimanual isometric force control, indicating that they proportionally increased ''good'' and ''bad'' variabilities, resulting in comparable bimanual motor synergy as the target force level increased.

show abstract

“…In addition, it would be interesting to analyze more variables and aspects that can describe and explain differences in bilateral interference between proximal and distal muscles in both the dominant and the non-dominant arm, for example, bimanual phase relations, distortions in trajectory trace, cycling frequency, and jerk. In addition, it has been shown that force modulation is a specific task parameter that influences bilateral interference between homologues and non-homologues muscles (Kennedy et al, 2014(Kennedy et al, , 2015. Therefore, it would be interesting in the future research to manipulate and adjust the resistance load in the proximal and distal joysticks to evaluate how force influences movement accuracy.…”

Section: Limitations Of the Study And Future Perspectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Normally, the two arms and hands benefit from bilateral communication and neural crosstalk between body sides to achieve a common goal. Neural crosstalk refers to mirrored neural activity sent to homologous contralateral brain areas and muscles during bimanual motor actions ( Cattaert et al, 1999 ; Swinnen, 2002 ; Kennedy et al, 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.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bilateral Interference in Motor Performance in Homologous vs. Non-homologous Proximal and Distal Effectors

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Bimanual force control: cooperation and interference?

Cited by 24 publications

References 81 publications

Perception and action influences on discrete and reciprocal bimanual coordination

Perception and action influences on discrete and reciprocal bimanual coordination

Motor control strategies during bimanual isometric force control among healthy individuals

Bilateral Interference in Motor Performance in Homologous vs. Non-homologous Proximal and Distal Effectors

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About