The complementary dominance hypothesis: a model for remediating the 'good' hand in stroke survivors.

The complementary dominance hypothesis is a novel model of motor lateralization substantiated by decades of research examining interlimb differences in the control of upper extremity movements in neurotypical adults and hemisphere-specific motor deficits in stroke survivors. In contrast to earlier ideas that attribute handedness to the specialization of one hemisphere, our model proposes complementary motor control specializations in each hemisphere. The dominant hemisphere mediates optimal control of limb dynamics as required for smooth and efficient movements, whereas the non-dominant hemisphere mediates impedance control, important for countering unexpected mechanical conditions and achieving steady-state limb positions. Importantly, this model proposes that each hemisphere contributes its specialization to both arms (though with greater influence from either arm's contralateral hemisphere) and thus predicts that lesions to one hemisphere should produce hemisphere-specific motor deficits in not only the contralesional arm, but also the ipsilesional arm of stroke survivors - a powerful prediction now supported by a growing body of evidence. Such ipsilesional arm motor deficits vary with contralesional arm impairment, and thus individuals with little to no functional use of the contralesional arm experience both the greatest impairments in the ipsilesional arm, as well as the greatest reliance on it to serve as the main or sole manipulator for activities of daily living. Accordingly, we have proposed and tested a novel intervention that reduces hemisphere-specific ipsilesional arm deficits and thereby improves functional independence in stroke survivors with severe contralesional impairment.

Symmetry and synchrony of bimanual movements are not predicated on interlimb control coupling.

Previous studies suggest that bimanual coordination recruits neural mechanisms that explicitly couple control of the arms, resulting in symmetric kinematics. However, the higher symmetry for actions that require congruous joint motions compared with noncongruous joint motions calls into question the concept of control coupling as a general policy. An alternative view proposes that codependence might emerge from an optimal feedback controller that minimizes control effort and costs in task performance. Support for this view comes from studies comparing conditions in which both hands move a shared or independent virtual objects. Because these studies have mainly focused on congruous bimanual movements, it remains unclear if kinematic symmetry emerges from such control policies. We now examine movements with congruous or noncongruous joint motions (inertially symmetric or asymmetric, respectively) under shared or independent cursors conditions. We reasoned that if a control policy minimizes kinematic differences between limbs, spatiotemporal symmetry should remain relatively unaffected by inertial asymmetries. As shared tasks reportedly elicit greater interlimb codependence, these conditions should elicit higher bilateral covariance regardless of inertial asymmetries. Our results indicate a robust spatiotemporal symmetry only under inertially symmetric conditions, regardless of cursor condition. We simulated bimanual reaching using an optimal feedback controller with and without explicit costs of kinematic asymmetry, finding that only the latter mirrored our empirical data. Our findings support the hypothesis that bimanual control policies do not include kinematic asymmetry as a cost when it is not demanded by task constraints suggesting that kinematic symmetry depends critically on mechanical movement conditions.NEW & NOTEWORTHY Previously, the control coupling hypothesis and task-dependent control hypothesis have been shown to be robust in the bimanually symmetrical movement, but whether the same policy remains robust in the bimanually asymmetrical movement remains unclear. Here, with evidence from empirical and simulation data, we show that a spatiotemporal symmetry between the arms is not predicated on control coupling, but instead it is predicated on the symmetry of mechanical conditions (e.g. limb inertia) between the arms.

Lateralization of acquisition and consolidation in direction but not amplitude of a motor skill task.

Previous research suggests that the neural processes underlying specification of movement direction and amplitude are independently represented in the nervous system. However, our understanding of acquisition and consolidation processes in the direction and distance learning remains limited. We designed a virtual air hockey task, in which the puck direction is determined by the hand direction at impact, while the puck distance is determined by the amplitude of the velocity. In two versions of this task, participants were required to either specify the direction or the distance of the puck, while the alternate variable did not contribute to task success. Separate groups of right-handed participants were recruited for each task. Each participant was randomly assigned to one of two groups with a counter-balanced arm practice sequence (right to left, or left to right). We examined acquisition and, after 24 h, we examined two aspects of consolidation: 1) same hand performance to test the durability and 2) the opposite hand to test the effector-independent consolidation (interlimb transfer) of learning. The distance task showed symmetry between hands in the extent of acquisition as well as in both aspects of consolidation. In contrast, the direction task showed asymmetry in both acquisition and consolidation: the dominant right arm showed faster and greater acquisition and greater transfer from the opposite arm training. The asymmetric acquisition and consolidation processes shown in the direction task might be explained by lateralized control and mapping of direction, an interpretation consistent with previous findings on motor adaptation paradigms.