Short article: Effects of interlimb practice on coding and learning of movement sequences

An interlimb practice paradigm was designed to determine the role that visual–spatial (Cartesian) and motor (joint angles, activation patterns) coordinates play in the coding and learning of complex movement sequences. Participants practised a 16-element movement sequence by moving a lever to sequentially presented targets with one limb on Day 1 and the contralateral limb on Day 2. Practice involved the same sequence with either the same visual–spatial or motor coordinates on the two days. A unilateral practice condition (control) was also tested where both coordinate systems were changed but the same limb was used. Retention tests were conducted on Day 3. Regardless of the order in which the limbs were used during practice, results indicated that keeping the visual–spatial coordinates the same during acquisition resulted in superior retention. This provides strong evidence that the visual–spatial code plays a dominant role in complex movement sequences, and this code is represented in an effector-independent manner.

[1]  Robert L. Sainburg,et al.  The symmetry of interlimb transfer depends on workspace locations , 2006, Experimental Brain Research.

[2]  C. Shea,et al.  Schema Theory: A Critical Appraisal and Reevaluation , 2005, Journal of motor behavior.

[3]  Scott T. Grafton,et al.  Motor sequence learning with the nondominant left hand , 2002, Experimental Brain Research.

[4]  Robert L. Sainburg,et al.  Mechanisms underlying interlimb transfer of visuomotor rotations , 2003, Experimental Brain Research.

[5]  Jinsung Wang,et al.  Adaptation to Visuomotor Rotations Remaps Movement Vectors, Not Final Positions , 2005, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[6]  R. Sainburg,et al.  Interlimb transfer of visuomotor rotations: independence of direction and final position information , 2002, Experimental Brain Research.

[7]  Stefan Panzer,et al.  The effects of sequence difficulty and practice on proportional and nonproportional transfer , 2008, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[8]  Joachim Hoffmann,et al.  Effector-related sequence learning in a bimanual-bisequential serial reaction time task , 2008, Psychological research.

[9]  R. Passingham,et al.  Temporary interference in human lateral premotor cortex suggests dominance for the selection of movements. A study using transcranial magnetic stimulation. , 1998, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[10]  D J Povel,et al.  Structural factors in patterned finger tapping. , 1982, Acta psychologica.

[11]  R. Sainburg,et al.  Differences in control of limb dynamics during dominant and nondominant arm reaching. , 2000, Journal of neurophysiology.

[12]  C. Shea,et al.  Transfer of movement sequences: bigger is better. , 2008, Acta psychologica.

[13]  R. Passingham,et al.  The Attentional Role of the Left Parietal Cortex: The Distinct Lateralization and Localization of Motor Attention in the Human Brain , 2001, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[14]  K. Doya,et al.  Parallel neural networks for learning sequential procedures , 1999, Trends in Neurosciences.

[15]  Christoph Braun,et al.  EEG correlates of coordinate processing during intermanual transfer , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.

[16]  Charles H Shea,et al.  Effect of Practice on Effector Independence , 2003, Journal of motor behavior.

[17]  M. Lovell,et al.  Lateralization of frontal lobe functions and cognitive novelty. , 1994, The Journal of neuropsychiatry and clinical neurosciences.

[18]  John W. Krakauer,et al.  Independent learning of internal models for kinematic and dynamic control of reaching , 1999, Nature Neuroscience.

[19]  D. Rosenbaum.  On choosing between movement sequences: comments on Rose (1988). , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[20]  J. Patton,et al.  Single Limb Performance Following Contralateral Bimanual Limb Training , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[21]  Willem B. Verwey,et al.  Evidence for the development of concurrent processing in a sequential keypressing task , 1994 .

[22]  Stefan Panzer,et al.  The transfer of movement sequences: Effects of decreased and increased load , 2007, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[23]  David A. Caulton,et al.  On the Modularity of Sequence Representation , 1995 .

[24]  Á. Pascual-Leone,et al.  The role of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex during sequence learning is specific for spatial information. , 2001, Cerebral cortex.

[25]  M. D’Esposito,et al.  Neural Evidence for Representation-Specific Response Selection , 2003, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[26]  Eric Soetens,et al.  Effector-dependent and response location learning of probabilistic sequences in serial reaction time tasks , 2006, Experimental Brain Research.

[27]  Steven E. Petersen,et al.  Intermanual transfer effects in sequential tactuomotor learning: Evidence for effector independent coding , 2006, Neuropsychologia.

[28]  Kenji Doya,et al.  fMRI investigation of cortical and subcortical networks in the learning of abstract and effector-specific representations of motor sequences , 2006, NeuroImage.

[29]  Reza Shadmehr,et al.  Learned dynamics of reaching movements generalize from dominant to nondominant arm. , 2003, Journal of neurophysiology.

[30]  Charles H Shea,et al.  Sequence Learning: Response Structure and Effector Transfer , 2005, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[31]  Charles H Shea,et al.  The coding and effector transfer of movement sequences. , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[32]  R. C. Oldfield.  The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. , 1971, Neuropsychologia.

[33]  Benjamin A Clegg,et al.  Effector dependent sequence learning in the serial RT task , 2005, Psychological research.

[34]  Alexander M. Harner,et al.  Evidence for effector independent and dependent representations and their differential time course of acquisition during motor sequence learning , 2000, Experimental Brain Research.

[35]  R. C. Miall,et al.  Concurrent adaptation to opposing visual displacements during an alternating movement , 2006, Experimental Brain Research.

[36]  D. Willingham,et al.  Implicit motor sequence learning is represented in response locations , 2000, Memory & cognition.

[37]  Charles H. Shea,et al.  Proportional and nonproportional transfer of movement sequences , 2006, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.