Biomedical subjects

Luis Rodrigues

Publications and source records attributed to Luis Rodrigues.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2005

Hand effects on mentally simulated reaching.

Within the area of simulated (imagined) versus actual movement research, investigators have discovered that mentally simulated movements, like real actions, are controlled primarily by the hemispheres contralateral to the simulated limb. Furthermore, evidence points to a left-brain advantage for accuracy of simulated movements. With this information it could be suggested that, compared to left-handers, most right-handers would have an advantage. To test this hypothesis, strong right- and left-handers were compared on judgments of perceived reachability to visual targets lasting 150 ms in multiple locations of midline, right- and left-visual field (RVF/LVF). In reference to within group responses, we found no hemispheric or hand use advantage for right-handers. Although left-handers revealed no hemispheric advantage, there was a significant hand effect, favoring the non-dominant limb, most notably in LVF. This finding is explained in regard to a possible interference effect for left-handers, not shown for right-handers. Overall, left-handers displayed significantly more errors across hemispace. Therefore, it appears that when comparing hand groups, a left-hemisphere advantage favoring right-handers is plausible.

Adult↗

PubMed2005

Motor imagery in reaching: is there a left-hemispheric advantage?

The study of motor imagery affords an attractive approach in the quest to identify the specific aspects of cognitive and neuromotor mechanisms and relationship involved in action processing. Here, the authors investigated the recently reported finding that compared to the left-hemisphere, the right brain is at a significant disadvantage for mentally simulating reaching movements. The authors investigated this observation with strong right-handers that were asked to estimate the imagined reachability of visual targets (presented at 150 ms) at multiple points at midline, right- and left visual field; responses were compared to actual maximum reaching distance. Results indicated that individuals are relatively accurate at imagined reachability, with no significant distinction between visual field responses. Therefore, these data provide no evidence to support the claim that the right hemisphere is significantly inferior to the left hemisphere in estimations of motor imagery for reaching. The authors do acknowledge differences in the experimental task and subject characteristics compared to earlier work using split-brain and stroke patients.

Adult↗

PubMed2004

Perceived reachability in hemispace.

A common observation in studies of perceived (imagined) compared to actual movement in a reaching paradigm is the tendency to overestimate. Of the studies noted, reaching tasks have been presented in the general midline range. In the present study, strong right-handers were asked to judge the reachability of visual targets projected onto a table surface at midline, right- (RVF), and left-visual fields (LVF). Midline results support those of previous studies, showing an overestimation bias. In contrast, participants revealed the tendency to underestimate their reachability in RVF and LVF. These findings are discussed from the perspective of actor 'confidence' (a cognitive state) possibly associated with visual information, perceived ability, and perceived task demands.

Adult↗