HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 100/2/565    most recent 90349.2008v1 Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Google Scholar Articles by Shabbott, B. A. Articles by Sainburg, R. L. PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Shabbott, B. A. Articles by Sainburg, R. L.

Differentiating Between Two Models of Motor Lateralization

¹The Huck Institutes of the Life Sciences, University Park; ²The Pennsylvania State University, University Park; and ³Department of Kinesiology, University Park; and ⁴Department of Neurology, Hershey, Pennsylvania

Submitted 10 March 2008; accepted in final form 19 May 2008

This study was designed to differentiate between two models of motor lateralization: "feedback corrections" and dynamic dominance. Whereas the feedback correction hypothesis suggests that handedness reflects a dominant hemisphere advantage for visual-mediated correction processes, dynamic dominance proposes that each hemisphere has become specialized for distinct aspects of control. This model suggests that the dominant hemisphere is specialized for controlling task dynamics, as required for coordinating efficient trajectories, and the nondominant hemisphere is specialized for controlling limb impedance, as required for maintaining stable postures. To differentiate between these two models, we examined whether visuomotor corrections are mediated differently for the nondominant and dominant arms. Participants performed targeted reaches in a virtual reality environment in which visuomotor rotations occurred in two directions that elicited corrections with different coordination requirements. The feedback correction model predicts a dominant arm advantage for the timing and accuracy of corrections in both directions. Dynamic dominance predicts that correction timing and accuracy will be similar for both arms, but that interlimb differences in the quality of corrections will depend on the coordination requirements, and thus, direction of corrections. Our results indicated that correction time and accuracy did not depend on arm. However, correction quality, as reflected by trajectory curvature, depended on both arm and rotation direction. Nondominant trajectories were systematically more curvilinear than dominant trajectories for corrections with the highest coordination requirement. These results support the dynamic dominance hypothesis.