Long-term practice of isolated finger movements reduces enslaved response of tonically contracting little finger abductor to tonic index finger abduction

The Nature of Finger Enslaving: New Results and Their Implications

We present a review on the phenomenon of unintentional finger action seen when other fingers of the hand act intentionally. This phenomenon (enslaving) has been viewed as a consequence of both peripheral (e.g., connective tissue links and multifinger muscles) and neural (e.g., projections of corticospinal pathways) factors. Recent studies have shown relatively large and fast drifts in enslaving toward higher magnitudes, which are not perceived by subjects. These and other results emphasize the defining role of neural factors in enslaving. We analyze enslaving within the framework of the theory of motor control with spatial referent coordinates. This analysis suggests that unintentional finger force changes result from drifts of referent coordinates, possibly reflecting the spread of cortical excitation.

Inhibitory Control of Adjacent Finger Movements while Performing a Modified Version of the Halstead Finger Tapping Test: Effects of Age, Education and Sex

OBJECTIVE

Selective motor inhibition is known to decline with age. The purpose of this study was to determine the frequency of failures at inhibitory control of adjacent finger movements while performing a repetitive finger tapping task in young, middle-aged and older adults. Potential education and sex effects were also evaluated.

METHODS

Kinematic recordings of adjacent finger movements were obtained on 107 healthy adults (ages 20-80) while they performed a modified version of the Halstead Finger Tapping Test (HTFF). Study participants were instructed to inhibit all finger movements while tapping with the index finger.

RESULTS

Inability to inhibit adjacent finger movements while performing the task was infrequent in young adults (2.9% of individuals between 20 and 39 years of age) but increased with age (23.3% between the ages of 40 and 59; 31.0% between ages 60 and 80). Females and males did not differ in their inability to inhibit adjacent finger movements, but individuals with a college education showed a lower frequency of failure to inhibit adjacent finger movements (10.3%) compared to those with a high school education (28.6%). These findings were statistically significant only for the dominant hand.

CONCLUSION

Selective motor inhibition failures are most common in the dominant hand and occur primarily in older healthy adults while performing the modified version of the HFTT. Monitoring selective motor inhibition failures may have diagnostic significance.

Common Motor Drive Triggers Response of Prime Movers When Two Fingers Simultaneously Respond to a Cue

This study investigated whether the motor execution process of one finger movement in response to a start cue is influenced by the participation of another finger movement and whether the process of the finger movement is dependent on the movement direction. The participants performed a simple reaction time (RT) task, the abduction or flexion of one (index or little finger) or two fingers (index and little fingers). The RT of the prime mover for the finger abduction was significantly longer than that for the flexion, indicating that the time taken for the motor execution of the finger response is dependent on the movement direction. The RT of the prime mover was prolonged when the abduction of another finger, whose RT was longer than the flexion, was added. This caused closer RTs between the prime movers for a two-finger response compared with the RTs for a one finger response. The absolute difference in the RT between the index and little finger responses became smaller when two fingers responded together compared with one finger response. Those results are well explained by a view that the common motor drive triggers the prime movers when two fingers move together in response to a start cue.