Simultaneous bimanual dynamics are learned without interference

Dynamic learning in humans has been extensively studied using externally applied force fields to perturb movements of the arm. These studies have focused on unimanual learning in which a force field is applied to only one arm. Here we examine dynamic learning during bimanual movements. Specifically we examine learning of a force field in one arm when the other arm makes movements in a null field or in a force field. For both the dominant and non-dominant arms, the learning (change in performance over the exposure period) was the same regardless of whether the other arm moved in a force field, equivalent either in intrinsic or extrinsic coordinates, or moved in a null field. Moreover there were no significant differences in learning in these bimanual tasks compared to unimanual learning, when one arm experienced a force field and the other arm was at rest. Although the learning was the same, there was an overall increase in error for the non-dominant arm for all bimanual conditions compared to the unimanual condition. This increase in error was the result of bimanual movement alone and was present even in the initial training phase before any forces were introduced. We conclude that, during bimanual movements, the application of a force field to one arm neither interferes with nor facilitates simultaneous learning of a force field applied to the other arm.

[1]  C R HAMILTON,et al.  INTERMANUAL TRANSFER OF ADAPTATION TO PRISMS. , 1964, The American journal of psychology.

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

[3]  R B Welch,et al.  Variables affecting the intermanual transfer and decay of prism adaptation. , 1974, Journal of experimental psychology.

[4]  J. Kelso Phase transitions and critical behavior in human bimanual coordination. , 1984, The American journal of physiology.

[5]  F A Mussa-Ivaldi,et al.  Adaptive representation of dynamics during learning of a motor task , 1994, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[6]  R B Welch,et al.  Multiple concurrent visual-motor mappings: implications for models of adaptation. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[7]  H. Imamizu,et al.  The locus of visual-motor learning at the task or manipulator level: implications from intermanual transfer. , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[8]  E Bizzi,et al.  Motor learning by field approximation. , 1996, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[9]  E. Bizzi,et al.  Consolidation in human motor memory , 1996, Nature.

[10]  S. Kitazawa,et al.  Prism Adaptation of Reaching Movements: Specificity for the Velocity of Reaching , 1997, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[11]  F. Mussa-Ivaldi,et al.  The motor system does not learn the dynamics of the arm by rote memorization of past experience. , 1997, Journal of neurophysiology.

[12]  D. Wolpert,et al.  Temporal and amplitude generalization in motor learning. , 1998, Journal of neurophysiology.

[13]  J R Flanagan,et al.  Composition and Decomposition of Internal Models in Motor Learning under Altered Kinematic and Dynamic Environments , 1999, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[14]  J. Baizer,et al.  Cerebellar lesions and prism adaptation in macaque monkeys. , 1999, Journal of neurophysiology.

[15]  R Shadmehr,et al.  Spatial Generalization from Learning Dynamics of Reaching Movements , 2000, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[16]  Luis Augusto Teixeira,et al.  Timing and Force Components in Bilateral Transfer of Learning , 2000, Brain and Cognition.

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

[18]  Daniel M Wolpert,et al.  Kinematics and Dynamics Are Not Represented Independently in Motor Working Memory: Evidence from an Interference Study , 2002, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[19]  R. Miall,et al.  Adaptation to rotated visual feedback: a re-examination of motor interference , 2003, Experimental Brain Research.

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

[21]  Konrad Paul Kording,et al.  A Neuroeconomics Approach to Inferring Utility Functions in Sensorimotor Control , 2004, PLoS biology.

[22]  S. Swinnen,et al.  Two hands, one brain: cognitive neuroscience of bimanual skill , 2004, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[23]  Jinsung Wang,et al.  Interlimb transfer of novel inertial dynamics is asymmetrical. , 2004, Journal of neurophysiology.

[24]  Rieko Osu,et al.  Erratum: Random presentation enables subjects to adapt to two opposing forces on the hand , 2004, Nature Neuroscience.

[25]  D. Ostry,et al.  Is Interlimb Transfer of Force-Field Adaptation a Cognitive Response to the Sudden Introduction of Load? , 2004, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[26]  M. Kawato,et al.  Random presentation enables subjects to adapt to two opposing forces on the hand , 2004, Nature Neuroscience.

[27]  D. Wolpert,et al.  Failure to Consolidate the Consolidation Theory of Learning for Sensorimotor Adaptation Tasks , 2004, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[28]  Stephen H Scott,et al.  Limited transfer of learning between unimanual and bimanual skills within the same limb , 2006, Nature Neuroscience.

[29]  J. Krakauer,et al.  An Implicit Plan Overrides an Explicit Strategy during Visuomotor Adaptation , 2006, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[30]  J. Krakauer,et al.  Generalization of Motor Learning Depends on the History of Prior Action , 2006, PLoS biology.