Reaching to ipsilateral or contralateral targets: Within-hemisphere visuomotor processing cannot explain hemispatial differences in motor control

David Peter Matthew Carey, E L Hargreaves, M A Goodale

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

74 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Aiming movements made to visual targets on the same side of the body as the reaching hand typically show advantages as compared to aiming movements made to targets on the opposite side of the body midline in the contralateral visual field. These advantages for ipsilateral reaches include shorter reaction time, higher peak velocity, shorter duration and greater endpoint accuracy. It is commonly hypothesized that such advantages are related to the efficiency of intrahemispheric processing, since, for example, a left-sided target would be initially processed in the visual cortex of the right hemisphere and that same hemisphere controls the motor output to the left hand. We tested this hypothesis by examining the kinematics of aiming movements made by 26 right-handed subjects to visual targets briefly presented in either the left or the right visual field. In one block of trials, the subjects aimed their finger directly towards the target; in the other block, subjects were required to aim their movement to the mirror symmetrical position on the opposite side of the fixation light from the target. For the three kinematic measures in which hemispatial differences were obtained (peak velocity, duration and percentage of movement time spent in deceleration), the advantages were related to the side to which the motor response was directed and not to the side where the target was presented. In addition, these effects tended to be larger in the right hand than in the left, particularly for the percentage of the movement time spent in deceleration. The results are interpreted in terms of models of biomechanical constraints on contralateral movements, which are independent of the hemispace of target presentation.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)496-504
Number of pages9
JournalExperimental Brain Research
Volume112
Issue number3
Publication statusPublished - Dec 1996

Keywords

  • motor control
  • hemispace
  • kinematics
  • handedness
  • interhemispheric transmission
  • human
  • LATERALIZED VISUAL-STIMULI
  • 2-JOINT ARM MOVEMENTS
  • LIMB MOVEMENTS
  • TEMPORAL CHARACTERISTICS
  • TRANSMISSION TIME
  • CALLOSAL AGENESIS
  • EVOKED-POTENTIALS
  • FINGER MOVEMENTS
  • AIMING MOVEMENTS
  • HAND DIFFERENCES

Cite this

Reaching to ipsilateral or contralateral targets: Within-hemisphere visuomotor processing cannot explain hemispatial differences in motor control. / Carey, David Peter Matthew; Hargreaves, E L ; Goodale, M A .

In: Experimental Brain Research, Vol. 112, No. 3, 12.1996, p. 496-504.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{9eb14baf7be146abb6d40728696ead51,
title = "Reaching to ipsilateral or contralateral targets: Within-hemisphere visuomotor processing cannot explain hemispatial differences in motor control",
abstract = "Aiming movements made to visual targets on the same side of the body as the reaching hand typically show advantages as compared to aiming movements made to targets on the opposite side of the body midline in the contralateral visual field. These advantages for ipsilateral reaches include shorter reaction time, higher peak velocity, shorter duration and greater endpoint accuracy. It is commonly hypothesized that such advantages are related to the efficiency of intrahemispheric processing, since, for example, a left-sided target would be initially processed in the visual cortex of the right hemisphere and that same hemisphere controls the motor output to the left hand. We tested this hypothesis by examining the kinematics of aiming movements made by 26 right-handed subjects to visual targets briefly presented in either the left or the right visual field. In one block of trials, the subjects aimed their finger directly towards the target; in the other block, subjects were required to aim their movement to the mirror symmetrical position on the opposite side of the fixation light from the target. For the three kinematic measures in which hemispatial differences were obtained (peak velocity, duration and percentage of movement time spent in deceleration), the advantages were related to the side to which the motor response was directed and not to the side where the target was presented. In addition, these effects tended to be larger in the right hand than in the left, particularly for the percentage of the movement time spent in deceleration. The results are interpreted in terms of models of biomechanical constraints on contralateral movements, which are independent of the hemispace of target presentation.",
keywords = "motor control, hemispace, kinematics, handedness, interhemispheric transmission, human, LATERALIZED VISUAL-STIMULI, 2-JOINT ARM MOVEMENTS, LIMB MOVEMENTS, TEMPORAL CHARACTERISTICS, TRANSMISSION TIME, CALLOSAL AGENESIS, EVOKED-POTENTIALS, FINGER MOVEMENTS, AIMING MOVEMENTS, HAND DIFFERENCES",
author = "Carey, {David Peter Matthew} and Hargreaves, {E L} and Goodale, {M A}",
year = "1996",
month = "12",
language = "English",
volume = "112",
pages = "496--504",
journal = "Experimental Brain Research",
issn = "0014-4819",
publisher = "Springer Verlag",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Reaching to ipsilateral or contralateral targets: Within-hemisphere visuomotor processing cannot explain hemispatial differences in motor control

AU - Carey, David Peter Matthew

AU - Hargreaves, E L

AU - Goodale, M A

PY - 1996/12

Y1 - 1996/12

N2 - Aiming movements made to visual targets on the same side of the body as the reaching hand typically show advantages as compared to aiming movements made to targets on the opposite side of the body midline in the contralateral visual field. These advantages for ipsilateral reaches include shorter reaction time, higher peak velocity, shorter duration and greater endpoint accuracy. It is commonly hypothesized that such advantages are related to the efficiency of intrahemispheric processing, since, for example, a left-sided target would be initially processed in the visual cortex of the right hemisphere and that same hemisphere controls the motor output to the left hand. We tested this hypothesis by examining the kinematics of aiming movements made by 26 right-handed subjects to visual targets briefly presented in either the left or the right visual field. In one block of trials, the subjects aimed their finger directly towards the target; in the other block, subjects were required to aim their movement to the mirror symmetrical position on the opposite side of the fixation light from the target. For the three kinematic measures in which hemispatial differences were obtained (peak velocity, duration and percentage of movement time spent in deceleration), the advantages were related to the side to which the motor response was directed and not to the side where the target was presented. In addition, these effects tended to be larger in the right hand than in the left, particularly for the percentage of the movement time spent in deceleration. The results are interpreted in terms of models of biomechanical constraints on contralateral movements, which are independent of the hemispace of target presentation.

AB - Aiming movements made to visual targets on the same side of the body as the reaching hand typically show advantages as compared to aiming movements made to targets on the opposite side of the body midline in the contralateral visual field. These advantages for ipsilateral reaches include shorter reaction time, higher peak velocity, shorter duration and greater endpoint accuracy. It is commonly hypothesized that such advantages are related to the efficiency of intrahemispheric processing, since, for example, a left-sided target would be initially processed in the visual cortex of the right hemisphere and that same hemisphere controls the motor output to the left hand. We tested this hypothesis by examining the kinematics of aiming movements made by 26 right-handed subjects to visual targets briefly presented in either the left or the right visual field. In one block of trials, the subjects aimed their finger directly towards the target; in the other block, subjects were required to aim their movement to the mirror symmetrical position on the opposite side of the fixation light from the target. For the three kinematic measures in which hemispatial differences were obtained (peak velocity, duration and percentage of movement time spent in deceleration), the advantages were related to the side to which the motor response was directed and not to the side where the target was presented. In addition, these effects tended to be larger in the right hand than in the left, particularly for the percentage of the movement time spent in deceleration. The results are interpreted in terms of models of biomechanical constraints on contralateral movements, which are independent of the hemispace of target presentation.

KW - motor control

KW - hemispace

KW - kinematics

KW - handedness

KW - interhemispheric transmission

KW - human

KW - LATERALIZED VISUAL-STIMULI

KW - 2-JOINT ARM MOVEMENTS

KW - LIMB MOVEMENTS

KW - TEMPORAL CHARACTERISTICS

KW - TRANSMISSION TIME

KW - CALLOSAL AGENESIS

KW - EVOKED-POTENTIALS

KW - FINGER MOVEMENTS

KW - AIMING MOVEMENTS

KW - HAND DIFFERENCES

M3 - Article

VL - 112

SP - 496

EP - 504

JO - Experimental Brain Research

JF - Experimental Brain Research

SN - 0014-4819

IS - 3

ER -