Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T04:55:09.085Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bimanual-Vertical Hand Movements

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 June 2011

Jay C. Kwon ,
Matthew L. Cohen ,
John Williamson ,
Brandon Burtis  and
Kenneth M. Heilman
Jay C. Kwon
Affiliation:
Department of Neurology, Changwon Fatima Hospital, Changwon, Republic of Korea Department of Neurology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida
Matthew L. Cohen*
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical and Health Psychology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida Malcom Randall Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Gainesville, Florida
John Williamson
Affiliation:
Department of Neurology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida Malcom Randall Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Gainesville, Florida
Brandon Burtis
Affiliation:
Department of Neurology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida Malcom Randall Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Gainesville, Florida
Kenneth M. Heilman
Affiliation:
Department of Neurology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida Department of Clinical and Health Psychology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida Malcom Randall Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Gainesville, Florida
*
Correspondence and reprint requests to: Matthew L. Cohen, P.O. Box 100165, Department of Clinical and Health Psychology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32610. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Patients often demonstrate attentional and action-intentional biases in both the transverse and coronal planes. In addition, when making forelimb movements in the transverse plane, normal participants also have spatial and magnitude asymmetries, but forelimb spatial asymmetries have not been studied in coronal space. Thus, to learn if when normal people make vertical movements they have right–left spatial and magnitude biases, seventeen healthy, blindfolded volunteers had their hands (holding pens) placed vertically in their midsagittal plane, 10 inches apart, on pieces of paper positioned above, below, and at eye-level. Participants were asked to move their hands together vertically and meet in the middle. Participants demonstrated less angular deviation in the below-eye condition than in the other spatial conditions, when moving down than up, and with their right than left hand. Movements toward eye level from upper or lower space were also more accurate than movements in the other directions. Independent of hand, lines were longer with downward than upward movements and the right hand moved more distance than the left. These attentional-intentional asymmetries may be related to gravitational force, hand-hemispheric dominance, and spatial “where” asymmetries; however, the mechanisms accounting for these asymmetries must be ascertained by future research. (JINS, 2011, 17, 732–739)

Keywords

IntentionAttentionHand asymmetryCoronal planeHemispheric specializationMotor control
Type
Research Articles
Information
Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society , Volume 17 , Issue 4 , 21 June 2011 , pp. 732 - 739
Copyright
Copyright © The International Neuropsychological Society 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bálint, R. (1909). Seelenlähmung des ‘schauens’, optische ataxie, räumliche störung der aufmerksamkeit. Monattsschrifte für Psychiatrische Neurologie, 25, 51–81.Google Scholar
Barrett, A., Buxbaum, L., Coslett, H., Edwards, E., Heilman, K., Hillis, A., Robertson, I. (2006). Cognitive rehabilitation interventions for neglect and related disorders: Moving from bench to bedside in stroke patients. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(7), 1223–1236. doi:10.1162/jocn.2006.18.7.1223Google Scholar
Bonino, D., Ricciardi, E., Sani, L., Gentili, C., Vanello, N., Guazzelli, M., Pietrini, P. (2008). Tactile spatial working memory activates the dorsal extrastriate cortical pathway in congenitally blind individuals. Archives Italiennes de Biologie, 146, 122–146.Google ScholarPubMed
Bowers, D., Heilman, K.M. (1980). Pseudoneglect: Effects of hemispace on a tactile line bisection task. Neuropsychologia, 18, 491–498.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chokron, S., Colliot, P., Atzeni, T., Bartolomeo, P., Ohlmann, T. (2004). Active versus passive proprioceptive straight-ahead pointing in normal subjects. Brain and Cognition, 55(2), 290–294.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohen, M.L., Burtis, B., Williamson, J.B., Kwon, J.C., Heilman, K.M. (2010). Action-intentional spatial bias in a patient with posterior cortical atrophy. Neurocase, 16(6), 529–534. doi:10.1080/13554794.2010.487827Google Scholar
Fujii, T., Yamadori, A., Fukatsu, R., Suzuki, K. (1996). Effects of hand-used on unilateral spatial neglect: A case study. The Tohoku Journal of Experimental Medicine, 180, 73–81.Google Scholar
Graff-Radford, J., Crucian, G.P., Heilman, K.M. (2006). The right arm likes to be close. Cortex, 42(5), 699–704. doi:10.1016/S0010-9452(08)70407-6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haaland, K.Y., Harrington, D.L., Knight, R.T. (1999). Spatial deficits in ideomotor limb apraxia. A kinematic analysis of aiming movements. Brain, 122(6), 1169–1182.Google Scholar
Heilman, K.M., Bowers, D., Watson, R.T. (1983). Performance on hemispatial pointing task by patients with neglect syndrome. Neurology, 33, 661–664.Google Scholar
Heilman, K.M., Bowers, D., Watson, R.T. (1984). Pseudoneglect in patients with partial callosal disconnection. Brain, 107, 519–532.Google Scholar
Heilman, K.M., Van den Abell, T. (1979). Right hemispheric dominance for mediating cerebral activation. Neuropsychologia, 17, 315–321.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heilman, K.M., Van den Abell, T. (1980). Right hemisphere dominance for attention: The mechanism underlying hemispheric asymmetries of inattention. Neurology, 30, 327–330.Google Scholar
Heilman, K.M., Watson, R.T., Valenstein, E. (2003). Neglect and related disorders. In K.M. Heilman & E. Valenstein (Eds.), Clinical neuropsychology (4th ed., pp. 296–346). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jeong, Y., Tsao, J.W., Heilman, K.M. (2006). Callosal neglect in hydrocephalus. Neurocase, 12(6), 346–349.Google Scholar
Jewell, G., McCourt, M.E. (2000). Pseudoneglect: A review and meta-analysis of performance factors in line bisection tasks. Neuropsychologia, 38, 93–110.Google Scholar
Lissauer, H. (1890). Ein Fall von SeeIenblindheit nebst conem Beitrage zur Theorie derseIben. Archiv fur Psychiatrie, 21, 222–270.Google Scholar
Mark, V.W., Heilman, K.M. (1990). Bodily neglect and orientational biases in unilateral neglect syndrome and normal subjects. Neurology, 40, 640–643.Google Scholar
McCourt, M.E., Freeman, P., Tahmahkera-Stevens, C., Chaussee, M. (2001). The influence of unimanual response on pseudoneglect magnitude. Brain and Cognition, 45, 52–63.Google Scholar
Mennemeier, M., Wertman, E., Heilman, K.M. (1992). Neglect of near peripersonal space: Evidence for multidirectional attentional systems in humans. Brain, 115, 37–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oldfield, R.C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9, 97–113.Google Scholar
Rapcsak, S.Z., Cimino, C.R., Heilman, K.M. (1988). Altitudinal neglect. Neurology, 38, 277–281.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shelton, P.A., Bowers, D., Heilman, K.M. (1990). Peripersonal and vertical neglect. Brain, 113, 191–205.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ungerleider, L.G., Mishkin, M. (1982). Equivalence of parieto-preoccipital subareas for visuospatial ability in monkeys. Behavioral Brain Research, 6, 41–55.Google Scholar
Weintraub, S., Mesulam, M.M. (1987). Right cerebral dominance in spatial attention. Further evidence based on ipsilateral neglect. Archives of Neurology, 44, 621–625.Google Scholar