Neural motor control differs between bimanual common-goal vs. bimanual dual-goal tasks
- 68 Downloads
Coordinating bimanual movements is essential for everyday activities. Two common types of bimanual tasks are common goal, where two arms share a united goal, and dual goal, which involves independent goals for each arm. Here, we examine how the neural control mechanisms differ between these two types of bimanual tasks. Ten non-disabled individuals performed isometric force tasks of the elbow at 10% of their maximal voluntary force in both bimanual common and dual goals as well as unimanual conditions. Using transcranial magnetic stimulation, we concurrently examined the intracortical inhibitory modulation (short-interval intracortical inhibition, SICI) as well as the interlimb coordination strategies utilized between common- vs. dual-goal tasks. Results showed a reduction of SICI in both hemispheres during dual-goal compared to common-goal tasks (dominant hemisphere: P = 0.04, non-dominant hemisphere: P = 0.03) and unimanual tasks (dominant hemisphere: P = 0.001, non-dominant hemisphere: P = 0.001). For the common-goal task, a reduction of SICI was only seen in the dominant hemisphere compared to unimanual tasks (P = 0.03). Behaviorally, two interlimb coordination patterns were identified. For the common-goal task, both arms were organized into a cooperative “give and take” movement pattern. Control of the non-dominant arm affected stabilization of bimanual force (R2 = 0.74, P = 0.001). In contrast, for the dual-goal task, both arms were coupled together in a positive fashion and neither arm affected stabilization of bimanual force (R2 = 0.31, P = 0.1). The finding that intracortical inhibition and interlimb coordination patterns were different based on the goal conceptualization of bimanual tasks has implications for future research.
KeywordsBimanual coordination Task goal Short-interval intracortical inhibition (SICI) Interlimb force coordination Motor control
We thank study participants who devoted their time and efforts in this study.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Fisher RA (1915) Frequency distribution of the values of the correlation coefficient in samples from an indefinitely large population. Biometrika 10:507–521Google Scholar
- Kelso JA (1984) Phase transitions and critical behavior in human bimanual coordination. Am J Physiol 246:R1000-1004Google Scholar
- Rossi S, Hallett M, Rossini PM, Pascual-Leone A (2009) Safety, ethical considerations, and application guidelines for the use of transcranial magnetic stimulation in clinical practice and research. Clin Neurophysiol 120:2008–2039. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2009.08.016 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Rossini PM, Burke D, Chen R et al (2015) Non-invasive electrical and magnetic stimulation of the brain, spinal cord, roots and peripheral nerves: basic principles and procedures for routine clinical and research application. An updated report from an I.F.C.N. Committee. Clin Neurophysiol 126:1071–1107CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Rothwell JC, Hallett M, Berardelli A, Eisen A, Rossini P, Paulus W (1999) Magnetic stimulation: motor evoked potentials. The International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 52:97–103Google Scholar
- Wassermann EM (1998) Risk and safety of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation: report and suggested guidelines from the International Workshop on the Safety of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation, June 5–7, 1996. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 108:1–16Google Scholar