Potential explanation of limb combination performance differences for two-limb coordination tasks.
Potential explanation of limb combination performance differences for two-limb coordination tasks.
复制标题
DOI：
10.14814/phy2.12301
复制
发表时间：
2015-02-01
影响因子：
2.5
通讯作者：
Kanosue K
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Nakagawa K;Muraoka T;Kanosue K
当运动方向与同方向（方向约束）相反时，矢状面中有节奏的双肢协调运动是可变的和不准确的。方向约束的大小取决于特定的肢体组合。它在同侧手足协调中突出，但在双手协调中最小。造成这种差异的原因尚不清楚。在这项研究中，我们调查了可能的机制，生产的差异，取决于肢体组合。受试者进行两肢节律协调运动，无论是在相同或相反的方向为三个独立的肢体组合（双手，对侧的手和脚，同侧的手和脚）。对于每种组合，进行两项不同的任务。在第一种情况下，受试者主动移动两个肢体（主动状态）。第二，受试者主动移动一个肢体与被动移动的肢体协调（被动条件）。在活动状态下，方向限制取决于肢体组合，如先前研究中所报告的;同侧组合中的方向限制相当突出，对侧组合中的方向限制居中，双侧组合中的方向限制最小。然而，方向约束的差异并不取决于肢体组合的任何组合中的被动条件，显然利用闭环控制。换句话说，当控制策略变成一致闭环时，依赖于肢体组合的差异消失了。因此，我们推测，所采用的控制策略取决于在主动条件下的肢体组合。此外，除了闭环控制之外的不同机制也将取决于特定的肢体组合而具有影响。这可能会导致性能差异，具体取决于肢体组合。
Rhythmic two-limb coordinated movements in the sagittal plane are variable and inaccurate when the movements are in the opposite direction as compared with those in the same direction (directional constraint). The magnitude of directional constraint depends on the particular limb combination. It is prominent in ipsilateral hand-foot coordination, but minimal in bimanual hand coordination. The reason for such differences remains unclear. In this study, we investigated the possible mechanisms underlying the production of the difference that depend on limb combination. Subjects performed two-limb rhythmic coordinated movements either in the same or in the opposite direction for three separate limb combinations (bilateral hands, contralateral hand and foot, and ipsilateral hand and foot). For each combination two different tasks were performed. In the first condition, subjects actively moved two limbs (active condition). Second, subjects actively moved one limb in coordination with a passively moved limb (passive condition). In the active condition, the directional constraint was dependent upon the limb combination, as reported in previous studies; the directional constraint was quite prominent in ipsilateral combinations, intermediate in contralateral combinations, and minimal for bilateral combination. However, differences in the directional constraint did not depend on limb combination for any combination in the passive conditions which apparently utilized closed-loop control. In other word, the difference depending on limb combination disappeared when control strategies become uniformly closed-loop. Thus, we speculate that the control strategy utilized depends on limb combination in the active condition. Additionally, different mechanisms other than closed-loop control also would have influence depending on the particular limb combination. This may result in differences in performance depending upon the limb combination.