Hemispatial differences in visually guided aiming are neither hemispatial nor visual

David Peter Matthew Carey, E. G. Otto-de Haart

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

31 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Many studies have found differences in movements made to tither side of the body midline. A popular interpretation of these differences has been that movements made by the arm, which is on same side of space in which the visual target appeared. are faster and better organised because they are processed within-hemisphere. Carey et al. (Experimental Brain Research 112 (1996) 496) showed that hemispatial movement differences cannot be accounted for by such a model. Their data suggested that biomechanical factors such as those proposed by Gordon rt al. (Experimental Brain Research 99 (1994) 112)could better account for differences in movement duration and several characteristics of velocity and acceleration. The present study examines these arguments by requiring subjects to make rapid pointing movements in two experiments. In the First, results demonstrated that hemispatial effects occurred in pointing movements made without any visual target or vision of the limb. These findings suggest that intra- and inter-hemispheric models are untenable. Cordon et al. argued that hand path direction relative to the long axis of the upper arm accounts for hemispatial effects on kinematics. III the second experiment hand path direction and hemispace were dissociated. Contralateral movements were performed more efficiently than ipsilateral movements, when target and starting positions required an adductive movement to acquire the contralateral target and an abductive movement to acquire the ipsilateral target. These results provide strong support Fur the Gordon et al. model. although the possible contributions of other dynamic Factors and/or differential control of proximal and distal muscles by the central nervous system cannot be ruled out. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)885-894
Number of pages9
JournalNeuropsychologia
Volume39
Issue number9
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jun 2001

Keywords

  • hemispatial
  • biomechanical factors
  • visual feedback
  • ARM MOVEMENTS
  • MOTOR CONTROL
  • HAND PRIOR
  • ASYMMETRIES
  • TARGETS
  • ACCURACY
  • SPACE
  • DYNAMICS
  • ERRORS
  • EYE

Cite this

Hemispatial differences in visually guided aiming are neither hemispatial nor visual. / Carey, David Peter Matthew; Otto-de Haart, E. G.

In: Neuropsychologia, Vol. 39, No. 9, 06.2001, p. 885-894.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Carey, David Peter Matthew ; Otto-de Haart, E. G. / Hemispatial differences in visually guided aiming are neither hemispatial nor visual. In: Neuropsychologia. 2001 ; Vol. 39, No. 9. pp. 885-894.
@article{e06cd8d5fbb3460f81c6c6e6aa7a873b,
title = "Hemispatial differences in visually guided aiming are neither hemispatial nor visual",
abstract = "Many studies have found differences in movements made to tither side of the body midline. A popular interpretation of these differences has been that movements made by the arm, which is on same side of space in which the visual target appeared. are faster and better organised because they are processed within-hemisphere. Carey et al. (Experimental Brain Research 112 (1996) 496) showed that hemispatial movement differences cannot be accounted for by such a model. Their data suggested that biomechanical factors such as those proposed by Gordon rt al. (Experimental Brain Research 99 (1994) 112)could better account for differences in movement duration and several characteristics of velocity and acceleration. The present study examines these arguments by requiring subjects to make rapid pointing movements in two experiments. In the First, results demonstrated that hemispatial effects occurred in pointing movements made without any visual target or vision of the limb. These findings suggest that intra- and inter-hemispheric models are untenable. Cordon et al. argued that hand path direction relative to the long axis of the upper arm accounts for hemispatial effects on kinematics. III the second experiment hand path direction and hemispace were dissociated. Contralateral movements were performed more efficiently than ipsilateral movements, when target and starting positions required an adductive movement to acquire the contralateral target and an abductive movement to acquire the ipsilateral target. These results provide strong support Fur the Gordon et al. model. although the possible contributions of other dynamic Factors and/or differential control of proximal and distal muscles by the central nervous system cannot be ruled out. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.",
keywords = "hemispatial, biomechanical factors, visual feedback, ARM MOVEMENTS, MOTOR CONTROL, HAND PRIOR, ASYMMETRIES, TARGETS, ACCURACY, SPACE, DYNAMICS, ERRORS, EYE",
author = "Carey, {David Peter Matthew} and {Otto-de Haart}, {E. G.}",
year = "2001",
month = "6",
doi = "10.1016/S0028-3932(01)00036-7",
language = "English",
volume = "39",
pages = "885--894",
journal = "Neuropsychologia",
issn = "0028-3932",
publisher = "Elsevier Limited",
number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Hemispatial differences in visually guided aiming are neither hemispatial nor visual

AU - Carey, David Peter Matthew

AU - Otto-de Haart, E. G.

PY - 2001/6

Y1 - 2001/6

N2 - Many studies have found differences in movements made to tither side of the body midline. A popular interpretation of these differences has been that movements made by the arm, which is on same side of space in which the visual target appeared. are faster and better organised because they are processed within-hemisphere. Carey et al. (Experimental Brain Research 112 (1996) 496) showed that hemispatial movement differences cannot be accounted for by such a model. Their data suggested that biomechanical factors such as those proposed by Gordon rt al. (Experimental Brain Research 99 (1994) 112)could better account for differences in movement duration and several characteristics of velocity and acceleration. The present study examines these arguments by requiring subjects to make rapid pointing movements in two experiments. In the First, results demonstrated that hemispatial effects occurred in pointing movements made without any visual target or vision of the limb. These findings suggest that intra- and inter-hemispheric models are untenable. Cordon et al. argued that hand path direction relative to the long axis of the upper arm accounts for hemispatial effects on kinematics. III the second experiment hand path direction and hemispace were dissociated. Contralateral movements were performed more efficiently than ipsilateral movements, when target and starting positions required an adductive movement to acquire the contralateral target and an abductive movement to acquire the ipsilateral target. These results provide strong support Fur the Gordon et al. model. although the possible contributions of other dynamic Factors and/or differential control of proximal and distal muscles by the central nervous system cannot be ruled out. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

AB - Many studies have found differences in movements made to tither side of the body midline. A popular interpretation of these differences has been that movements made by the arm, which is on same side of space in which the visual target appeared. are faster and better organised because they are processed within-hemisphere. Carey et al. (Experimental Brain Research 112 (1996) 496) showed that hemispatial movement differences cannot be accounted for by such a model. Their data suggested that biomechanical factors such as those proposed by Gordon rt al. (Experimental Brain Research 99 (1994) 112)could better account for differences in movement duration and several characteristics of velocity and acceleration. The present study examines these arguments by requiring subjects to make rapid pointing movements in two experiments. In the First, results demonstrated that hemispatial effects occurred in pointing movements made without any visual target or vision of the limb. These findings suggest that intra- and inter-hemispheric models are untenable. Cordon et al. argued that hand path direction relative to the long axis of the upper arm accounts for hemispatial effects on kinematics. III the second experiment hand path direction and hemispace were dissociated. Contralateral movements were performed more efficiently than ipsilateral movements, when target and starting positions required an adductive movement to acquire the contralateral target and an abductive movement to acquire the ipsilateral target. These results provide strong support Fur the Gordon et al. model. although the possible contributions of other dynamic Factors and/or differential control of proximal and distal muscles by the central nervous system cannot be ruled out. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

KW - hemispatial

KW - biomechanical factors

KW - visual feedback

KW - ARM MOVEMENTS

KW - MOTOR CONTROL

KW - HAND PRIOR

KW - ASYMMETRIES

KW - TARGETS

KW - ACCURACY

KW - SPACE

KW - DYNAMICS

KW - ERRORS

KW - EYE

U2 - 10.1016/S0028-3932(01)00036-7

DO - 10.1016/S0028-3932(01)00036-7

M3 - Article

VL - 39

SP - 885

EP - 894

JO - Neuropsychologia

JF - Neuropsychologia

SN - 0028-3932

IS - 9

ER -