Motor Behavior

The Effect of Handedness and Manipulation of the Index of Difficulty on the Behavioral and Neural Components of Speed-Accuracy Trade Off

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Teacher of Motor Behavior, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz

2 Teacher of Physical Education in Education Department of Shoushtar, Shoushtar

3 Assistant Professor of Motor Behavior, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz

Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of handedness and task difficulty on behavioral and neural components of speed-accuracy trade off. The study was a Quasi-experimental research and focused on fundamental research. The participants of this study consisted of 20 students aged 14 and 15 years old. The instrument was four-channel EEG, optical sensor with sensor, laptop, metronome, and Target-Tapping-Test software. Given the Edinburgh handedness questionnaire scores, participants were divided into two left-hand and right-hand groups. They performed the simple and difficult tasks in a 30s with dominant and non-dominant hands. At the same time, the behavioral output as output digits from the pen and tablet (spatial and temporal errors) and the EEG data from the brain regions. For data analysis, repeated measures ANOVA was used at the significance level of 0.05. The results showed that non-dominant limb is affected to the task difficulty than dominant hand, and has more spatial error. The handedness and task difficulty had no significant effect on the effective width of the target. In the non-dominant limb, the average interruption for difficult task was more than simple task. In the C3 region, the gamma wave power was higher in a difficult task than in an easy task, and in right-handed subjects was higher in the hand. In the F4 area, the power of the alpha wave was easy for left-hand people when performing difficult moves above the task. Seems, in tasks that require accuracy and speed, spatial and temporal errors are affected by the task difficulty and handedness, But the timing errors is more affected by the task difficulty than the handedness. It also seems that the left and right frontal lobe areas are more important than other areas in Fitz's task execution.

Keywords

Main Subjects

  1. Van Veen V, Krug MK, Carter CS. The neural and computational basis of controlled speed-accuracy tradeoff during task performance. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 2008;20(11): 1952-65.
  2. Rozand V, Lebon F, Papaxanthis C, Lepers R. Effect of mental fatigue on speed–accuracy trade-off. Neuroscience. 2015; 297:219-30.
  3. Schmidt RA, Wrisberg CA. Motor learning and performance: A situation-based learning approach. Human Kinetics. 4th ed. 2008. PP: 57-62.
  4. Fitts, P. M. The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. J Exp Psychol. 1954; 47:381–91.
  5. Schmidt R A, Lee TD. Motor control and learning. 4th ed. Canada: Human Kinetics; 2005. PP. 145-9.
  6. Lunardini F, Bertucco M, Casellato C, Bhanpuri N, Pedrocchi A, Sanger TD. Speed-accuracy trade-off in a trajectory-constrained self-feeding task: A quantitative index of unsuppressed motor noise in children with dystonia. J Child Neurol. 2015;30(12):1676–85.
  7. Bhushan N, Shadmehr R. Computational nature of human adaptive control during learning of reaching movements in force fields. Biol Cybern. 1999; 81:39–60.
  8. Meyer DE, Abrams RA, Kornblum S, Wright CE, and Smith J.K. Optimality in human motor performance: Ideal control of rapid aimed movements. Psychol Rev. 1988; 95:340.
  9. Smits-Engelsman BC, Rameckers EA, Duysens J. Children with congenital spastic hemiplegia obey Fitts’ Law in a visually guided tapping task. Exp Brain Res. 2007;177(4):431–9.
  10. Plamondon R, Alimi AM. Speed/accuracy trade-offs in target-directed movements. Behav. Brain Sci. 1997;20(02):279-303.
  11. Danion F, Bongers RM, Bootsma RJ. The trade-off between spatial and temporal variabilities in reciprocal upper-limb aiming movements of different durations. PloS one. 2014;9(5): 97447.
  12. Moghadam A, Nabavi NM, Rezaeian F. Comparation of the effect of ipsilateral and contralateral eye-hand dominant on the accuracy of the free throwing of basketball players. Quart J. Spo Scienc. 2002;2(8):35-44.
  13. Grouios G. Right hand advantage in visually guided reaching and aiming movements: brief review and comments. Ergonomics. 2206;49(10):1013-7.
  14. Bagi J, Kudachi P, Goudar S. Influence of motor task on handedness. AAJMBG. 2011;4(1),87-91.
  15. Rodrigues PC, Vasconcelos OB, João B, Barbosa, R. Manual asymmetry in a complex coincidence-anticipation task: Handedness and gender effects'. J Latera. 2008;14(4): 395-412.
  16. Shadmehr R, Orban de Xivry J.-J., Xu-Wilson M, Shih T.-Y. Temporal discounting of reward and the cost of time in motor control. J Neurosci. 2010; 30:10507–16.
  17. Rigoux L, Guigon E. A model of reward and effort-based optimal decision making and motor control. PLoS Comput. 2012;8: 1002716.
  18. Young WB, Bilby GE. The effect of voluntary effort to influence speed. J Strength Condition Res. 1993; 7:172–8.
  19. Green L, Myerson J. A discounting framework for choice with delayed and probabilistic rewards. Psychol Bull. 2004; 30:769-92.
  20. Peternel L, Sigaud O, Babič J. Unifying speed-accuracy trade-off and cost-benefit trade-off in human reaching movements. Front Hum Neurosci. 2017 Dec 19;11:615.
  21. Harris CM, Wolpert DM. Signal-dependent noise determines motor planning. Nature. 1998; 394:780–4.
  22. Heitz RP, Schall JD. Neural mechanisms of speed-accuracy trade off. Neuron. 2012; 76:616–28.
  23. Wong K.-F., Huk AC, Shadlen MN, Wang X.-J. Neural circuit dynamics underlying accumulation of time-varying evidence during perceptual decision making. Front Comput. Neurosci. 2007; 1:6; 71-81.
  24. Ratcliff R, Cherian A, Segraves M. A comparison of macaque behavior and superior colliculus neuronal activity to predictions from models of two-choice decisions. J Neurophysiol. 2003;90,1392–407.
  25. Ratcliff R, Hasegawa YT, Hasegawa RP, Smith PL, Segraves MA. Dual diffusion model for single-cell recording data from the superior colliculus in a brightness-discrimination task. J Neurophysiol. 2007; 97:1756–74.
  26. Ding L, Gold JI. Caudate encodes multiple computations for perceptual decisions. J Neurosci. 2010; 30:15747–59.
  27. Forstmann BU, Dutilh G, Brown S, Neumann J, von Cramon DY, Ridderinkhof KR, Wagenmakers EJ. Striatum and pre-SMA facilitate decision-making under time pressure. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Nov 11;105(45):17538-42.
  28. Forstmann BU, Anwander A, Schäfer A, Neumann J, Brown S, Wagenmakers E-J, Bogacz R, Turner R. Cortico-striatal connections predict control over speed and accuracy in perceptual decision making. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Sep 7;107(36):15916-20.
  29. Wenzlaff H, Bauer M, Maess B, Heekeren HR. Neural characterization of the speed-accuracy tradeoff in a perceptual decision-making task. JNeurosci. 2011; 31:1254–66.
  30. Oldfield RC (1971) The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia 9: 97-113.
  31. Gazzaniga M, Ivry RB, Mangun GR. Cognitive neuroscience: The biology of the mind. New York: W. W. Norton & Company; 2013.
  32. Leiser SC, Dunlop J, Bowlby MR, Devilbiss DM. Aligning strate-gies for using EEG as a surrogate biomarker: A review of preclinical andclinical research. Biochem Pharmacol; 2011:81:1408–21.
  33. Polich J. Updating P300: An integrative theory of P3a and P3b. Clin Neuro-physiol. 2007; 118:2128–48.
  34. Pfurtscheller G. Functional brain imaging based on ERD/ERS. Vision Res. 2001; 41:1257–60.
  35. Stancák Jr. A, Pfurtscheller G. The effects of handedness and type of movement on the contralateral preponderance of rhythm desynchronisation. Electroencephalogr. Clin Neurophysiol. 1996; 99:174–82.
  36. Rizzolatti G, Fogassi L, Gallese V. Neurophysiological mechanisms under-lying the understanding and imitation of action. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2001; 2:661–70.
  37. Pollok B, Gross J, Müller K, Aschersleben G, Schnitzler A. The cerebral oscillatory network associated with auditorily paced finger movements. Neu-roimage. 2005; 24:646–55.
  38. Serrien D, Brown P. The functional role of interhemispheric synchroniza-tion in the control of bimanual timing tasks. Exp Brain Res. 2002:147:268–72.
  39. Salenius S, Salmelin R, Neuper C, Pfurtscheller G, Hari R. Human cortical40 Hz rhythm is closely related to emg rhythmicity. Neurosci Lett. 1996; 213:75–8.
  40. Sanes JN, Donoghue JP. Oscillations in local field potentials of the pri-mate motor cortex during voluntary movement. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 1993; 90:4470–4.
  41. Senkowski D, Schneider TR, Foxe JJ, Engel AK. Crossmodal bindingthrough neural coherence: Implications for multisensory processing. Trends Neurosci. 2008; 31:  401–9.
  42. Asai T, Sugimori E, Tanno Y. Two agents in the brain: Motor control of unimanual and bimanual reaching movements. PloS one;2010;5(4): 10086.
  43. Mickevičienė D, Motiejūnaitė K, Karanauskienė D, Skurvydas A, Vizbaraitė D, Krutulytė G, Rimdeikienė I. Gender-dependent bimanual task performance. Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania). 2010;47(9):497-503.
  44. Latash ML. Neurophysiological basis of movement. 2nd ed. Hum Kinet. 2008;       111-5.
  45. Stöckel T, Weigelt M. Brain lateralisation and motor learning: Selective effects of dominant and non-dominant hand practice on the early acquisition of throwing skills. JLater. 2012;17(1):18-37.
  46. Hsieh TY, Liu YT, Mayer-Kress G, Newell KM. The movement speed-accuracy relation in space-time. Hum mov scien. 2013;32(1):257-69.
  47. Gutnik B, Skurvydas A, Zuoza A, Zuoziene I, Mickevičienė D, Alekrinskis, BA, et al. Influence of spatial accuracy constraints on reaction time and maximum speed of performance of unilateral movements. Percept. Mot. Ski. 2015;120(2):519-33.
  48. Sainburg RL, Eckhardt RB. Optimization through lateralisation: The evolution of handedness. Behav. Brain Res. 2005; 28:611-2.
  49. Sainburg RL, Kalakanis D. Differences in control of limb dynamics during dominant and non-dominant arm reaching. J. Neurophysiol. 2000; 83:2661-75.
  50. Wang J, Sainburg RL. The dominant and non-dominant arms are specialised for stabilising different features of task performance. Exp. Brain Res. 2007; 178:565-70.
  51. Sainburg, RL, Wang J. Interlimb transfer of visuomotor rotations: Independence of direct and final end position information. Exp. Brain Res. 2002; 145:437-47.
  52. Wang J, Sainburg RL. Interlimb transfer of novel inertial dynamics is asymmetrical. J. Neurophysiol. 2004;92: 2149-54.
  53. Miller EK, Cohen JD. An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex function. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 2001; 24:167–202.
  54. Egner T, Hirsch, J. Cognitive control mechanisms resolve conflict through cortical amplification of task-relevant information. Nat. Neurosci. 2005; 8:1784–90.
  55. Bunge SA, Hazeltine E, Scanlon MD, Rosen AC, Gabrieli JDE. Dissociable contributions of prefrontal and parietal cortices to response selection. Neuroimage. 2002; 17:1562–71.
  56. Hanks TD, Ditterich J, Shadlen MN. Microstimulation of macaque area LIP affects decision-making in a motion discrimination task. Nat. Neurosci. 2006;9: 682–9.
Motor Behavior
Volume 10, Issue 34
Winrer 2019
January 2019
Pages 121-150

  • Receive Date 05 January 2019
  • Revise Date 02 March 2019
  • Accept Date 16 March 2019

Home

Reviewers

Submit Manuscript

Publication Ethics

news

Journal Metrics

Contact Us