Periodic interlimb coordination shows lower performance when the ipsilateral hand and foot (e.g., right hand and right foot) are simultaneously moved than when the contralateral hand and foot (e.g., right hand and left foot) are simultaneously moved. The present study aimed to investigate how brain activity that is related to the dependence of hand-foot coordination on limb combination, using functional magnetic imaging. Twenty-one right-handed subjects performed periodic coordinated movements of the ipsilateral or contralateral hand and foot in the same or opposite direction in the sagittal plane. Kinematic data showed that performance was lower for the ipsilateral hand-foot coordination than for the contralateral one. A comparison of brain activity between the same and opposite directions showed that there was a greater activation of supplementary motor area for ipsilateral hand-foot coordination as compared to that seen during contralateral hand-foot coordination. We speculate that this might reflect a difference in the degree of inhibition of the neural circuit that disrupts opposite directional movements between ipsilateral and contralateral hand-foot coordinated movements.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 October 2016.
All research outputs
#18,472,072
of 22,889,074 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#6,082
of 7,173 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#242,047
of 319,861 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#140
of 162 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,889,074 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,173 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 319,861 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 162 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
