Comparison of dominant hand to non-dominant hand in conduction of reaching task from 3D kinematic data: Trade-off between successful rate and movement efficiency

Xiang Xiao; Huijing Hu; Lifang Li; Le Li; Xiang Xiao; Huijing Hu; Lifang Li; Le Li

doi:10.3934/mbe.2019077

Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering

2019, Volume 16, Issue 3: 1611-1624. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2019077

Previous Article Next Article

Research article Special Issues

Comparison of dominant hand to non-dominant hand in conduction of reaching task from 3D kinematic data: Trade-off between successful rate and movement efficiency

1.
Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
2.
Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Luo Hu peoples’ hospital, Shenzhen, China
3.
Guangdong Work Injury Rehabilitation Center, Guangzhou, China
4.
Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Seventh Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Shenzhen, China

Received: 13 November 2018 Accepted: 29 January 2019 Published: 26 February 2019

This study aimed to investigate the effects of handedness on motion accuracies and to compare 3D kinematic data in reaching performance of dominant and non-dominant hand with the influence of movement speed and target locations. Twelve healthy young adults used self-selected and fast speed to reach for three different target locations as follows: frontal, ipsilateral and contralateral to the performing hand, with equal distance. Both hands were tested and kinematic parameters were recorded by 3D motion analysis system. Successful rate, reach path ratio, mean and peak velocity, the timing of peak velocity and ROM of joints were analyzed. Reach path ratio was smaller when using the dominant hand (p < 0.01) and fast speed (p < 0.01) to perform the movement, but the successful rate of the dominant hand was lower than non-dominant hand during fast speed reaching (99.1% vs 100%). Contralateral movement had lower velocity than the other two target locations, while velocity did not vary between non-dominant and dominant hand. The timing of peak velocity occurred significantly later for fast speed movements (p < 0.01). Trunk rotation was significantly smaller when using the dominant hand, fast movement speed or reaching to the ipsilateral target. The ROM of elbow and wrist flexion-extension decreased in contralateral reaching. The performance of the dominant hand and/or fast speed movements was more efficient with straighter hand path and less trunk rotation, but the successful rate decreased in dominant hand during fast speed movements. The timing of peak velocity occurred later during fast movement in both hands indicating a decreased feedback phase. Target location can influence movement strategy as reaching to contralateral target required more proximal movements and ipsilateral reaching used more distal segment movements.
- handedness,
- kinematic,
- motor strategy,
- upper extremity,
- reaching
Citation: Xiang Xiao, Huijing Hu, Lifang Li, Le Li. Comparison of dominant hand to non-dominant hand in conduction of reaching task from 3D kinematic data: Trade-off between successful rate and movement efficiency[J]. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2019, 16(3): 1611-1624. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2019077

Related Papers:

Abstract

This study aimed to investigate the effects of handedness on motion accuracies and to compare 3D kinematic data in reaching performance of dominant and non-dominant hand with the influence of movement speed and target locations. Twelve healthy young adults used self-selected and fast speed to reach for three different target locations as follows: frontal, ipsilateral and contralateral to the performing hand, with equal distance. Both hands were tested and kinematic parameters were recorded by 3D motion analysis system. Successful rate, reach path ratio, mean and peak velocity, the timing of peak velocity and ROM of joints were analyzed. Reach path ratio was smaller when using the dominant hand (p < 0.01) and fast speed (p < 0.01) to perform the movement, but the successful rate of the dominant hand was lower than non-dominant hand during fast speed reaching (99.1% vs 100%). Contralateral movement had lower velocity than the other two target locations, while velocity did not vary between non-dominant and dominant hand. The timing of peak velocity occurred significantly later for fast speed movements (p < 0.01). Trunk rotation was significantly smaller when using the dominant hand, fast movement speed or reaching to the ipsilateral target. The ROM of elbow and wrist flexion-extension decreased in contralateral reaching. The performance of the dominant hand and/or fast speed movements was more efficient with straighter hand path and less trunk rotation, but the successful rate decreased in dominant hand during fast speed movements. The timing of peak velocity occurred later during fast movement in both hands indicating a decreased feedback phase. Target location can influence movement strategy as reaching to contralateral target required more proximal movements and ipsilateral reaching used more distal segment movements.

References

[1]	D. J. Goble and S. H. Brown, The biological and behavioral basis of upper limb asymmetries in sensorimotor performance. Neurosci. Biohehav. R., 32(2008), 598–610.
[2]	B. Hanna-Pladdy, J. E. Mendoza and G. T. Apostolos, et al., Lateralised motor control: hemispheric damage and the loss of deftness, J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry, 73(2002), 574–577.
[3]	G. A. Ghacibeh, R. Mirpuri and V. Drago, et al.,Ipsilateral motor activation during unimanual and bimanual motor tasks, Clin. Neurophysiol., 118(2007), 325–332.
[4]	M. P. Bryden, Measuring handedness with questionnaires, Neuropsychologia, 15(1977), 617–624.
[5]	R. Sainburg, Evidence for a dynamic-dominance hypothesis of handedness, Exp. Brain Res., 142(2002), 241–258.
[6]	R. L. Sainburg and D. Kalakanis, Differences in control of limb dynamics during dominant and nondominant arm reaching, J Neurophysiol., 83(2000), 2661–2675.
[7]	J. M. Wagner, C. E. Lang and S. A. Sahrmann, et al., Sensorimotor impairments and reaching performance in subjects with poststroke hemiparesis during the first few months of recovery, Phys. Ther., 87(2007), 751–765.
[8]	L. Van Dokkum, I. Hauret and D. Mottet, et al., The contribution of kinematics in the assessment of upper limb motor recovery early after stroke, Neurorehabil. Neural Repair, 28(2013), 4–12.
[9]	B. Hingtgen, J. R. McGuire and M. Wang, et al, An upper extremity kinematic model for evaluation of hemiparetic stroke, J. Biomech., 39(2006), 681–688.
[10]	C. Bosecker, L. Dipietro and B. Volpe, et al, Kinematic robot-based evaluation scales and clinical counterparts to measure upper limb motor performance in patients with chronic stroke, Neurorehabil. Neural Repair, 24(2010), 62–69.
[11]	J. V. G. Robertson and A. Roby-Brami, The trunk as a part of the kinematic chain for reaching movements in healthy subjects and hemiparetic patients, Brain Res., 1382(2011), 137–146.
[12]	S. K. Subramanian, J. Yamanaka and G. Chilingaryan, et al., Validity of movement pattern kinematics as measures of arm motor impairment poststroke, Stroke, 41(2010), 2303–2308.
[13]	R. J. Van Beers, P. Haggard and D. M. Wolpert, The role of execution noise in movement variability, J Neurophysiol., 91(2004), 1050–1063.
[14]	M. Levin, Interjoint coordination during pointing movements is disrupted in spastic hemiparesis, Brain, 119(1996), 281–293.
[15]	M. Duarte and S. M. Freitas, Speed-accuracy trade-off in voluntary postural movements, Motor Control, 9(2005), 180–196.
[16]	J. Förster, E. T. Higgins and A. T. Bianco, Speed/accuracy decisions in task performance: Built-in trade-off or separate strategic concerns? Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process, 90(2003), 148–164.
[17]	O. Missenard and L. Fernandez, Moving faster while preserving accuracy, Neuroscience, 197(2011), 233–241.
[18]	S. L. Dejong, S. Y. Schaefer and C. E. Lang, Need for speed: better movement quality during faster task performance after stroke, Neurorehabil. Neural Repair, 26(2012), 362–373.
[19]	R. C. Oldfield, The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory, Neuropsychologia, 9(1971), 97–113.
[20]	G. T. Thielman, C. M. Dean and A.M. Gentile, Rehabilitation of reaching after stroke: Task-related training versus progressive resistive exercise, Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil., 85(2004), 1613–1618.
[21]	S. Y. Schaefer, S. L. DeJong and K. M. Cherry, et al., Grip type and task goal modify reach-to-grasp performance in post-stroke hemiparesis, Motor Control, 16(2012), 245–264.
[22]	P. M. van Vliet and M. R. Sheridan, Ability to adjust reach extent in the hemiplegic arm, Physiotherapy, 95(2009), 176–184.
[23]	R. F. Molina, M. F. Rivas and D. H. T. M. Perez, et al., Movement analysis of upper extremity hemiparesis in patients with cerebrovascular disease: a pilot study, Neurologia, 27(2012), 343–347.
[24]	L. B. Bagesteiro and R. L. Sainburg, Nondominant arm advantages in load compensation during rapid elbow joint movements, J. Neurophysiol., 90(2003), 1503–1513.
[25]	R. L. Sainburg, Convergent models of handedness and brain lateralization, Front. Psychol., 5(2014), 1092.
[26]	L. B. Bagesteiro and R. L. Sainburg, Handedness: Dominant arm advantages in control of limb dynamics, J. Neurophysiol., 88(2002), 2408–2421.
[27]	W. G. Yoo, Comparison of reaching velocity, upper trunk movement, and center of force movement between a dominant and nondominant hand reaching task, J. Phys. Ther. Sci., 26(2014), 1547–1548.
[28]	S. Barthélémy and P. Boulinguez, Manual asymmetries in the directional coding of reaching: further evidence for hemispatial effects and right hemisphere dominance for movement planning, Exp. Brain Res., 147(2002), 305–312.
[29]	K. C. Lin, C. Y. Wu and K. H. Lin, et al., Effects of task instructions and target location on reaching kinematics in people with and without cerebrovascular accident: a study of the less-affected limb, Am. J. Occup. Ther., 62(2008), 456–465.
[30]	P. H. McCrea and J. J. Eng, Consequences of increased neuromotor noise for reaching movements in persons with stroke, Exp. Brain Res., 162(2005), 70–77.
[31]	ADDIN CNKISM.UserStyleJ. I. Todor and J. Cisneros, Accommodation to increased accuracy demands by the right and left hands, J. Mot. Behav., 17(1985), 355–372.
[32]	D. P. Carey, E. L. Hargreaves and M. A. Goodale, Reaching to ipsilateral or contralateral targets: within-hemisphere visuomotor processing cannot explain hemispatial differences in motor control, Exp. Brain Res., 112(1996), 496–504.
[33]	H. Carnahan, Manual asymmetries in response to rapid target movement, Brain Cogn., 37(1998), 237–253.
[34]	P. Boulinguez, V. Nougier and J. L. Velay, Manual asymmetries in reaching movement control. I: Study of right-handers, Cortex, 37(2001), 101–122.
[35]	L. A. Knaut, S. K. Subramanian and B. J. McFadyen, et al., Kinematics of pointing movements made in a virtual versus a physical 3-dimensional environment in healthy and stroke subjects, Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil., 90(2009), 793–802.
[36]	D. P. Carey and H. E. Otto-de, Hemispatial differences in visually guided aiming are neither hemispatial nor visual, Neuropsychologia,. 39(2001), 885–894.
[37]	Y. Chen, H. Hu and C. Ma, et al., Stroke-related changes in the complexity of muscle activation during obstacle-crossing using fuzzy approximate entropy analysis, Front. Neurol., 9(2018), 131.
[38]	C. Ma, N. Chen and Y. Mao, et al., Alterations of muscle activation pattern in stroke survivors during obstacle crossing, Front. Neurol., 8(2017), 70.
[39]	Q. H. Huang, B. W. Wu and J. L. Lan, et al., Fully automatic three-dimensional ultrasound imaging based on conventional B-scan, IEEE Trans. Biomed. Circuits Syst., 12(2018), 426–436.
[40]	Q. H. Huang, Z. Z. Zeng and X. L. Li, 2.5-Dimensional extended field-of-view ultrasound, IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging, 37(2018), 851–859.

Reader Comments

Your name:*

Email:*
© 2019 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)