The purpose of this study was to test how the sensory modality of rhythmic stimuli affects the production of bimanual coordination patterns. To this aim, participants had to synchronize the taps of their two index fingers with auditory and visual stimuli presented separately (auditory or visual) or simultaneously (audio-visual). This kind of task requires two levels of coordination: (1) sensorimotor coordination, which can be measured by the mean asynchrony between the beat of the stimulus and the corresponding tap and by mean asynchrony stability, and (2) inter-manual coordination, which can be assessed by the accuracy and stability of the relative phase between the right-hand and left-hand taps. Previous studies show that sensorimotor coordination is better during the synchronization with auditory or audio-visual metronomes than with visual metronome, but it is not known whether inter-manual coordination is affected by stimulation modalities. To answer this question, 13 participants were required to tap their index fingers in synchrony with the beat of auditory and/or visual stimuli specifying three coordination patterns: two preferred inphase and antiphase patterns and a non-preferred intermediate pattern. A first main result demonstrated that inphase tapping had the best inter-manual stability, but the worst asynchrony stability. The second main finding revealed that for all patterns, audio-visual stimulation improved the stability of sensorimotor coordination but not of inter-manual coordination. The combination of visual and auditory modalities results in multisensory integration, which improves sensorimotor coordination but not inter-manual coordination. Both results suggest that there is dissociation between processes underlying sensorimotor synchronization (anticipation or reactivity) and processes underlying inter-manual coordination (motor control). This finding opens new perspectives to evaluate separately the possible sensorimotor and inter-manual coordination deficits present in movement disorders.
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 05 August 2015.
All research outputs
#22,937,446
of 28,079,727 outputs
Outputs from Experimental Brain Research
#2,677
of 3,508 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#207,271
of 278,614 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Experimental Brain Research
#32
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 28,079,727 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,508 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. 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 278,614 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 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
