Differential effects of internal versus external focus of instruction on action planning and performance in patients with right and left hemispheric stroke

Implicit motor sequence learning using three-dimensional reaching movements with the non-dominant left arm

Interlimb differences in reach control could impact the learning of a motor sequence that requires whole-arm movements. The purpose of this study was to investigate the learning of an implicit, 3-dimensional whole-arm sequence task with the non-dominant left arm compared to the dominant right arm. Thirty-one right-hand dominant adults completed two consecutive days of practice of a motor sequence task presented in a virtual environment with either their dominant right or non-dominant left arm. Targets were presented one-at-a-time alternating between Random and Repeated sequences. Task performance was indicated by the time to complete the sequence (response time), and kinematic measures (hand path distance, peak velocity) were used to examine how movements changed over time. While the Left Arm group was slower than the Right Arm group at baseline, both groups significantly improved response time with practice with the Left Arm group demonstrating greater gains. The Left Arm group improved performance by decreasing hand path distance (straighter path to targets) while the Right Arm group improved performance through a smaller decrease in hand path distance combined with increasing peak velocity. Gains made during practice on Day 1 were retained on Day 2 for both groups. Overall, individuals reaching with the non-dominant left arm learned the whole-arm motor sequence task but did so through a different strategy than individuals reaching with the dominant right arm. The strategy adopted for the learning of movement sequences that require whole-arm movements may be impacted by differences in reach control between the nondominant and dominant arms.

Action imitation via trajectory-based or posture-based planning

Imitation is a significant daily activity involved in social interaction and motor learning. Imitation has been theorized to be performed in at least two ways. In posture-based imitation, individuals reproduce how the body should look and feel, and are sensitive to the relative positioning of body parts. In trajectory imitation, individuals mimic the spatiotemporal motion path of the end effector. There are clear anecdotal situations in which one might benefit from imitating postures (when learning ballet) or trajectories (when learning to reach around objects). However, whether these are in fact distinct methods of imitation, and if so, whether they may be applied interchangeably to perform the same task, remain unknown. If these are indeed separate mechanisms that rely on different computational and neural resources, a cost should be incurred when switching from using one mechanism to the other within the context of a single task. Therefore, observing a processing cost would both provide evidence that these are indeed two distinct mechanisms, and that they may be used interchangeably when trying to imitate the same stimulus. To test this, twenty-five healthy young adults performed a sequential multitasking imitation task. Participants were first instructed to pay attention to the limb postures or the hand path of a video-recorded model, then performed a neutral, congruent, or incongruent intervening motor task. Finally, participants imitated the modeled movement. We examined both spatial and temporal imitation accuracy as well as individual spatial consistency. When the primary task involved imitating trajectories, analysis of individual consistency suggested a processing cost: movements following the posture-matching intervening task were less consistent with baseline (neutral) performance, suggesting performance may be disrupted by the incongruence. This effect was not observed when imitating limb postures. In summary, we present initial evidence for a difference between posture matching and trajectory imitation as a result of instructions and intervening tasks that is consistent with the existence of two computationally distinct imitation mechanisms.