The coding and effector transfer of movement sequences.

Three experiments utilizing a 14-element arm movement sequence were designed to determine if reinstating the visual-spatial coordinates, which require movements to the same spatial locations utilized during acquisition, results in better effector transfer than reinstating the motor coordinates, which require the same pattern of homologous muscle activation. Results demonstrated better transfer when visual-spatial coordinates were reinstated than when motor coordinates where reinstated regardless of the amount of practice (1, 4, or 12 days; Experiments 1-3, respectively). Transfer (left to right and right to left) was symmetric when visual-spatial coordinates were reinstated but not when motor coordinates were reinstated. When motor coordinates were reinstated after 12 days of practice and vision occluded, transfer was better from right limb to left than vice versa. The data are also consistent with the notion that multiple codes (visual, spatial, and motor) are developed over practice, with each contributing to transfer performance when the respective coordinates are reinstated. Further, the results indicate a disruption of the linkage (concatenation) between subsequences when one or more coordinates are changed on the transfer test.

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

[2]  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.

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

[4]  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.

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

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

[7]  W. Verwey Effect of Sequence Length on the Execution of Familiar Keying Sequences: Lasting Segmentation and Preparation? , 2003, Journal of motor behavior.

[8]  M. Mon-Williams,et al.  Motor Control and Learning , 2006 .

[9]  J I Todor,et al.  Accommodation to increased accuracy demands by the right and left hands. , 1985, Journal of motor behavior.

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

[11]  R. Sainburg Evidence for a dynamic-dominance hypothesis of handedness , 2001, Experimental Brain Research.

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

[13]  B. Bergum,et al.  Attention and performance IX , 1982 .

[14]  Robert L. Sainburg,et al.  Handedness: Differential Specializations for Control of Trajectory and Position , 2005, Exercise and sport sciences reviews.

[15]  Willem B. Verwey,et al.  Lasting hierarchical control in a sequential keying task: a structural limitation of segment length? , 2003 .

[16]  Robert L Sainburg,et al.  Handedness: dominant arm advantages in control of limb dynamics. , 2002, Journal of neurophysiology.

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

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

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

[20]  Willem B. Verwey,et al.  Evidence for a multistage model of practice in a sequential movement task. , 1999 .

[21]  S. Keele,et al.  The cognitive and neural architecture of sequence representation. , 2003, Psychological review.

[22]  M. T. Turvey,et al.  The concept of “command neurons” in explanations of behavior , 1978, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

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

[24]  D. Elliott,et al.  Asymmetries in the regulation of visually guided aiming. , 1993, Journal of motor behavior.

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

[26]  V. Bowden,et al.  The Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences , 1992 .

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

[28]  M. L. Tsetlin,et al.  Models of the Structural-Functional Organization of Certain Biological Systems , 1971 .

[29]  Michael I. Jordan,et al.  The Organization of Action Sequences: Evidence From a Relearning Task. , 1995, Journal of motor behavior.

[30]  D. Elliott,et al.  Manual asymmetries in visually directed aiming. , 1986, Canadian journal of psychology.

[31]  S. Small,et al.  Functional Lateralization of the Human Premotor Cortex during Sequential Movements , 2002, Brain and Cognition.

[32]  D J Langley,et al.  The acquisiton of time properties associated with a sequential motor skill. , 1984, Journal of motor behavior.

[33]  Charles H Shea,et al.  Age-related effects in sequential motor learning. , 2006, Physical therapy.

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

[35]  D Goodman,et al.  On the nature of human interlimb coordination. , 1979, Science.

[36]  R. Schmidt A schema theory of discrete motor skill learning. , 1975 .

[37]  W B Verwey,et al.  Concatenating familiar movement sequences: the versatile cognitive processor. , 2001, Acta psychologica.

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

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

[40]  J. Annett,et al.  The Control of Movement in the Preferred and Non-Preferred Hands* , 1979, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[41]  W. B. Verwey,et al.  A Forthcoming Key Press Can Be Selected While Earlier Ones Are Executed. , 1993, Journal of motor behavior.

[42]  T. Carr,et al.  Automaticity in skill acquisition: Mechanisms for reducing interference in concurrent performance. , 1989 .

[43]  Christoph Braun,et al.  Coordinate processing during the left-to-right hand transfer investigated by EEG , 2005, Experimental Brain Research.

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

[45]  Richard B Ivry,et al.  Concurrent learning of temporal and spatial sequences. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

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

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

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

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

[50]  M. Nissen,et al.  Attentional requirements of learning: Evidence from performance measures , 1987, Cognitive Psychology.

[51]  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.

[52]  M. Gazzaniga Cerebral specialization and interhemispheric communication: does the corpus callosum enable the human condition? , 2000, Brain : a journal of neurology.

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