JN Information on EB 2010
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


J Neurophysiol (May 21, 2008). doi:10.1152/jn.90349.2008
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
100/2/565    most recent
90349.2008v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Shabbott, B. A
Right arrow Articles by Sainburg, R. L
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Shabbott, B. A
Right arrow Articles by Sainburg, R. L
Submitted on March 10, 2008
Revised on May 13, 2008
Accepted on May 19, 2008

Differentiating between two models of motor lateralization

Britne A Shabbott1 and Robert L Sainburg2*

1 The Pennsylvania State University
2 Penn State University

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: rls45{at}psu.edu.

The current study was designed to differentiate between two models of motor lateralization: "feedback corrections" and dynamic dominance. While 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 non-dominant hemisphere is specialized for controlling limb impedance, as required for maintaining stable postures. In order to differentiate between these two models, we examined whether visuomotor corrections are mediated differently for the non-dominant 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. Non-dominant trajectories were systematically more curvilinear than dominant trajectories for corrections with the highest coordination requirement. These results support the dynamic dominance hypothesis.







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
Visit Other APS Journals Online
Copyright © 2008 by the The American Physiological Society.