4.4 Article

Brain lateralization of complex movement: Neuropsychological evidence from unilateral stroke

期刊

BRAIN AND COGNITION
卷 84, 期 1, 页码 164-169

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.bandc.2013.11.010

关键词

Complex movement; Transitive movement; Intransitive movement; Brain lateralization; Stroke

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Complex movement (CM) refers to the representation of a goal-oriented action and is classified as either transitive (use of tools) or intransitive (communication gestures). Both types of CM have three specific components: temporal, spatial, and content, which are subdivided into specific error types (SET). Since there is debate regarding the contribution of each brain hemisphere for the types of CM, our objective was to describe the brain lateralization of components and SET of transitive and intransitive CM. We studied 14 patients with a left hemisphere stroke (LH), 12 patients with a right hemisphere stroke (RH), and 16 control subjects. The Florida Apraxia Screening Test-Revised (FAST-R, Rothi et al., 1988) was used for the assessment of CM. Both clinical groups showed a worse performance than the control group on the total FAST-R and transitive movement scores (p<0.001). Failures in Spatial and Temporal components were found in both clinical groups, but only LH patients showed significantly more Content errors (p<0.01) than the control group. Also, only the LH group showed a higher number of errors for intransitive movements score (p=0.017), due to lower scores in the content component, compared to the control group (p=0.04). Transitive and intransitive CMs differ in their neurocognitive representation; transitive CM shows a bilateral distribution of its components when compared to intransitive CM, which shows a preferential left hemisphere representation. This could result from higher neurocognitive demands for movements that require use of tools, compared with more automatic communication gestures. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据