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: 92/3/1374    most recent 00181.2004v1 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 Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (18) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Sainburg, R. L. Articles by Schaefer, S. Y. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Sainburg, R. L. Articles by Schaefer, S. Y.

Interlimb Differences in Control of Movement Extent

Department of Kinesiology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802

Submitted 25 February 2004; accepted in final form 24 April 2004

The current study was designed to examine potential interlimb asymmetries in controlling movement extent. Subjects made repetitive single-joint elbow extension movements while the arm was supported on a horizontal, frictionless, air-jet system. Four targets of 10, 20, 35, and 45° excursions were randomly presented over the course of 150 trials. For both arms, peak tangential hand velocity scaled linearly with movement distance. There was no significant difference between either peak velocities or movement accuracies for the two arms. However, the mechanisms responsible for achieving these velocities and extents were quite distinct for each arm. For the dominant arm, peak tangential finger acceleration varied systematically with movement distance. In contrast, nondominant-arm peak tangential acceleration varied little across targets and, as such, was a poor predictor of movement distance. Instead the velocities of the nondominant arm were determined primarily by variation in the duration of the initial acceleration impulse, which corresponds to the time of peak velocity. These different strategies reflect previously identified mechanisms in controlling movement distance: pulse-height control and pulse-width control. The former is characterized by a variation in peak acceleration and has been associated with preplanning mechanisms. The latter occurs after peak acceleration and has been shown to depend on peripheral sensory feedback. Our findings indicate that the dominant-arm system controls movement extent largely through planning mechanisms that specify pulse-height control, whereas the nondominant system does so largely through feedback mediated pulse-width control.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				D. J. Goble and S. H. Brown Upper Limb Asymmetries in the Matching of Proprioceptive Versus Visual Targets J Neurophysiol, June 1, 2008; 99(6): 3063 - 3074. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Y. Schaefer, K. Y. Haaland, and R. L. Sainburg Ipsilesional motor deficits following stroke reflect hemispheric specializations for movement control Brain, August 1, 2007; 130(8): 2146 - 2158. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Hore, M. O'Brien, and S. Watts Control of Joint Rotations in Overarm Throws of Different Speeds Made by Dominant and Nondominant Arms J Neurophysiol, December 1, 2005; 94(6): 3975 - 3986. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Wang and R. L. Sainburg Adaptation to Visuomotor Rotations Remaps Movement Vectors, Not Final Positions J. Neurosci., April 20, 2005; 25(16): 4024 - 4030. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]