Rhythmical bimanual force production: homologous and non-homologous muscles

Kennedy, Deanna M.; Boyle, Jason B.; Rhee, Joohyun; Shea, Charles H.

doi:10.1007/s00221-014-4102-y

Cited by 19 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 62 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…According to the crosstalk model, two independent motor plans exist for each limb and some fraction of the force commands for one limb is diverted to the other limb (Cattaert et al, 1999). It has been proposed that the movements produced by the symmetric activation of homologous muscles are stabilized when the contralateral and ipsilateral signals are integrated, while movements produced by the activation of nonhomologous muscles or asymmetric activation suffer from ongoing interference due to conflicting information and partial intermingling of signals controlling the two arms (e.g., Kagerer et al, 2003;Kennedy, Boyle, Rhee, & Shea, 2015a;Marteniuk, MacKenzie, & Baba, 1984).…”

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

“…Perturbations in the force and force-velocity time series were observed for the non-dominant effector that were associated with the activation and release of force by the dominant effector. However, similar distortions in the force and force-velocity time series for the dominant effector that could be attributed to force production by the non-dominant effector were not observed [ 4 ]. The results of this line of inquiry are consistent with previous research indicating neural crosstalk is asymmetric, with the dominant effector/hemisphere exerting a stronger influence on the non-dominant effector/hemisphere than vice versa [ 21 , 23 , 29 , 30 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The influence of distal and proximal muscle activation on neural crosstalk

Wang

Neto²,

Weinrich³

et al. 2022

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research has indicated that neural crosstalk is asymmetric, with the dominant effector exerting a stronger influence on the non-dominant effector than vice versa. Recently, it has been hypothesized that this influence is more substantial for proximal than distal effectors. The current investigation was designed to determine the effects of distal ((First Dorsal Interosseous (FDI)) and proximal (triceps brachii (TBI)) muscle activation on neural crosstalk. Twelve right-limb dominant participants (mean age = 21.9) were required to rhythmically coordinate a 1:2 pattern of isometric force guided by Lissajous displays. Participants performed 10, 30 s trials with both distal and proximal effectors. Coherence between the two effector groups were calculated using EMG-EMG wavelet coherence. The results indicated that participants could effectively coordinate the goal coordination pattern regardless of the effectors used. However, spatiotemporal performance was more accurate when performing the task with distal than proximal effectors. Force distortion, quantified by harmonicity, indicated that more perturbations occurred in the non-dominant effector than in the dominant effector. The results also indicated significantly lower harmonicity for the non-dominant proximal effector compared to the distal effectors. The current results support the notion that neural crosstalk is asymmetric in nature and is greater for proximal than distal effectors. Additionally, the EMG-EMG coherence results indicated significant neural crosstalk was occurring in the Alpha bands (5–13 Hz), with higher values observed in the proximal condition. Significant coherence in the Alpha bands suggest that the influence of neural crosstalk is occurring at a subcortical level.

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%

“…For example, research has shown that bimanual interference emerges when two limbs must be moved along different trajectories and when the action is conducted under different task parameters ( Wenderoth et al, 2003 ). The main parameters affecting bimanual interference appear to be differences in amplitude and direction of movement, along with velocity and shape assimilation ( Franz, 1997 ; Walter et al, 2001 ; Weigelt et al, 2007 ; Calvin et al, 2010 ), and force modulation ( Heuer et al, 2001 ; Kennedy et al, 2014 , 2015 ). In addition, differences in movement frequency and relative phase relations influence bimanual coordination patterns and performance ( Kelso, 1984 ; Kelso et al, 1986 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Previously research comparing bilateral interference between homologous and non-homologous muscles has extensively focused on bimanual finger and hand dexterities that require bimanual force control (e.g., Kennedy et al, 2014 , 2015 ) or bimanual coordination with different relative phase or amplitude requirements (e.g., Cohen, 1971 ; Kelso, 1984 ). In addition, some studies of bimanual movements have analyzed the effect of perceptual constraints (visual feedback) on bimanual coordination ( Mechsner et al, 2001 ; Mechsner and Knoblich, 2004 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Rhythmical bimanual force production: homologous and non-homologous muscles

Cited by 19 publications

References 62 publications

Perception and action influences on discrete and reciprocal bimanual coordination

Perception and action influences on discrete and reciprocal bimanual coordination

The influence of distal and proximal muscle activation on neural crosstalk

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About