Intermanual Cross–Talk Effects in Unimanual Choice Reactions

Cognitive constraints on motor imagery

Executed bimanual movements are prepared slower when moving to symbolically different than when moving to symbolically same targets and when targets are mapped to target locations in a left/right fashion than when they are mapped in an inner/outer fashion [Weigelt et al. (Psychol Res 71:238-447, 2007)]. We investigated whether these cognitive bimanual coordination constraints are observable in motor imagery. Participants performed fast bimanual reaching movements from start to target buttons. Symbolic target similarity and mapping were manipulated. Participants performed four action conditions: one execution and three imagination conditions. In the latter they indicated starting, ending, or starting and ending of the movement. We measured movement preparation (RT), movement execution (MT) and the combined duration of movement preparation and execution (RTMT). In all action conditions RTs and MTs were longer in movements towards different targets than in movements towards same targets. Further, RTMTs were longer when targets were mapped to target locations in a left/right fashion than when they were mapped in an inner/outer fashion, again in all action conditions. RTMTs in imagination and execution were similar, apart from the imagination condition in which participants indicated the start and the end of the movement. Here MTs, but not RTs, were longer than in the execution condition. In conclusion, cognitive coordination constraints are present in the motor imagery of fast (<1600 ms) bimanual movements. Further, alternations between inhibition and execution may prolong the duration of motor imagery.

Effects of angular shift transformations between movements and their visual feedback on coordination in unimanual circling

Tool actions are characterized by a transformation between movements and their resulting consequences in the environment. This transformation has to be taken into account when tool actions are planned and executed. We investigated how angular shift transformations between circling movements and their visual feedback affect the coordination of this feedback with visual events in the environment. We used a task that required participants to coordinate the visual feedback of a circular hand movement (presented on the right side of a screen) with a circling stimulus (presented on the left side of a screen). Four stimulus-visual feedback relations were instructed: same or different rotations of stimulus and visual feedback, either in same or different y-directions. Visual speed was varied in three levels (0.8, 1, and 1.2 Hz). The movement-visual feedback relation was manipulated using eight angular shifts: (-180, -135, -90, -45, 0, 45, 90, and 135°). Participants were not able to perform the different rotation/different y-direction pattern, but instead fell into the different rotation/same y-direction pattern. The different rotation/same y-direction pattern and the same rotation/same y-direction pattern were performed equally well, performance was worse in the same rotation/different y-direction pattern. Best performance was observed with angular shifts 0 and -45° and performance declined with larger angular shifts. Further, performance was better with negative angular shifts than with positive angular shifts. Participants did not fully take the angular shift transformation into account: when the angular shifts were negative the visual feedback was more in advance, and when angular shifts were positive the visual feedback was less in advance of the stimulus than in 0° angular shift. In conclusion, the presence and the magnitude of angular shift transformations affect performance. Internal models do not fully take the shift transformation into account.

Motor limitation in dual-task processing with different effectors

According to the extended bottleneck model, dual-task interference does not arise only from a central bottleneck but also from processing limitations at the motor stage. Evidence for this assumption has previously been found only for same-effector tasks but not for different-effector tasks. In order to examine the existence of motor interference with different effectors, we used the psychological refractory period paradigm and employed response sequences of different length in Task 1 (R1 sequence length). Experiment 1 incorporated vocal response sequences in Task 1 and a manual response in Task 2. In Experiment 2, the assignment of the effectors to the two tasks was reversed. In both experiments, the long R1 sequence prolonged reaction time for Task 2 (RT2), and this effect was reduced with decreasing temporal overlap of the two tasks. Thus, the present experiments demonstrate motor interference between different-effector tasks. This interference may be due to on-line programming or to central response monitoring.