Intermanual coordination: From behavioural principles to neural-network interactions

Abstract

Locomotion in vertebrates and invertebrates has a long history in research as the most prominent example of interlimb coordination. However, the evolution towards upright stance and gait has paved the way for a bewildering variety of functions in which the upper limbs interact with each other in a context-specific manner. The neural basis of these bimanual interactions has been investigated in recent years on different scales, ranging from the single-cell level to the analysis of neuronal assemblies. Although the prevailing viewpoint has been to assign bimanual coordination to a single brain locus, more recent evidence points to a distributed network that governs the processes of neural synchronization and desynchronization that underlie the rich variety of coordinated functions. The distributed nature of this network accounts for disruptions of interlimb coordination across various movement disorders.

Stabilization of bimanual coordination due to active interhemispheric inhibition: a dynamical account

“…This simple structure represents a well-established dynamics of rhythmic isofrequency interlimb coordination that describes switches in coordination from anti-to inphase patterns (i.e., from mirrored to synchronous movements) with increasing movement frequency (Haken et al 1985;Beek et al 2002;Swinnen 2002). Complementing the results of phenomenological, behavioral studies, our modeling results suggest that an increase in frequency may affect (i) the amplitudes of activity in the two M1s, (ii) the strength of activity in premotor areas, and/or (iii) the degree of phase locking between the M1s and premotor areas, and may therefore induce behavioral changes.…”

Partial correlation for functional brain interactivity investigation in functional MRI

“…Cortico-cortical inputs are also present, originating from the opposite hemisphere. Movement can elicit complex brain processes that are still under investigation (Kandel et al, 2000;Swinnen, 2002). How the available anatomical information can be translated in terms of models of effective connectivity therefore often remains unknown.…”

Robotics and neuroscience: A rhythmic interaction

“…7-top, one can see that both arms were rarely actuated at the same time. In contrast, at fast tempo, the actuation was sustained and strongly synchronized between both arms: their velocity profiles were almost completely in anti-phase (in the egocentric frame of reference), a pattern of actuation that is proved to be reasonably stable (Swinnen, 2002), Fig. 7-bottom.…”

“…While rhythmic movements can be programmed by low level Central Pattern Generators (CPGs) (see e.g. Cohen, Rossignol, and Grillner (1988), Duysens and Van de Crommert (1998) and Swinnen (2002)), discrete movements also recruit higher cortical areas, that have been shown to play a role in the processing of sensory feedback (Desmurget et al, 2001). The level of feedback processing thus appears to be different in both kinds of movements.…”

“…However, rhythmic tasks often require the recruitment of simultaneous degrees of freedom, hence requiring movement coordination (Bernstein, 1967;Kelso, 1995;Kelso, Southard, & Goodman, 1979;Turvey, 1990) between several limbs. Inter-limb coordination rules underlie the possible movement patterns, and those principles cannot be inferred from the laws of single-joint or single-limb movements (Swinnen, 2002;Swinnen & Wenderoth, 2004). At the frequency level, the default mode of coordination is synchronization, ubiquitous in biological systems (the recent book by Strogatz (2003), abounds with such examples).…”