Unimanual motor tasks, specifically movements that are complex or require high forces, activate not only the contralateral primary motor cortex (M1) but evoke also ipsilateral M1 activity. This involvement of ipsilateral M1 is asymmetric, such that the left M1 is more involved in motor control with the left hand than the right M1 in movements with the right hand. This suggests that the left hemisphere is specialized for movement control of either hand, although previous experiments tested mostly right-handed participants. In contrast, research on hemispheric asymmetries of ipsilateral M1 involvement in left-handed participants is relatively scarce. In the present study, left- and right-handed participants performed complex unimanual movements, whereas TMS was used to disrupt the activity of ipsilateral M1 in accordance with a “virtual lesion” approach. For right-handed participants, more disruptions were induced when TMS was applied over the dominant (left) M1. For left-handed participants, two subgroups could be distinguished, such that one group showed more disruptions when TMS was applied over the nondominant (left) M1, whereas the other subgroup showed more disruptions when the dominant (right) M1 was stimulated. This indicates that functional asymmetries of M1 involvement during ipsilateral movements are influenced by both hand dominance as well as left hemisphere specialization. We propose that the functional asymmetries in ipsilateral M1 involvement during unimanual movements are primarily attributable to asymmetries in the higher-order areas, although the contribution of transcallosal pathways and ipsilateral projections cannot be completely ruled out.

Seeing or hearing manual actions activates the mirror neuron system, that is, specialized neurons within motor areas which fire when an action is performed but also when it is passively perceived. Using TMS, it was shown that motor cortex of typically developed subjects becomes facilitated not only from seeing others' actions, but also from merely hearing action-related sounds. In the present study, TMS was used for the first time to explore the “auditory” and “visual” responsiveness of motor cortex in individuals with congenital blindness or deafness. TMS was applied over left primary motor cortex (M1) to measure cortico-motor facilitation while subjects passively perceived manual actions (either visually or aurally). Although largely unexpected, congenitally blind or deaf subjects displayed substantially lower resonant motor facilitation upon action perception compared to seeing/hearing control subjects. Moreover, muscle-specific changes in cortico-motor excitability within M1 appeared to be absent in individuals with profound blindness or deafness. Overall, these findings strongly argue against the hypothesis that an increased reliance on the remaining sensory modality in blind or deaf subjects is accompanied by an increased responsiveness of the “auditory” or “visual” perceptual–motor “mirror” system, respectively. Moreover, the apparent lack of resonant motor facilitation for the blind and deaf subjects may challenge the hypothesis of a unitary mirror system underlying human action recognition and may suggest that action perception in blind and deaf subjects engages a mode of action processing that is different from the human action recognition system recruited in typically developed subjects.

The present study addressed the nature of the memory representation for interlimb coordination tasks. For this purpose, the acquisition of a multifrequency (2:1) task with the ipsilateral limbs and transfer to the ipsilateral and contralateral body side was examined. In particular, subjects practiced a 2:1 coordination pattern whereby the right arm moved twice as fast as the right leg, or vice versa. Subsequently, they transferred the practiced 2:1 task to three different conditions: (1) the converse partner (i.e., the slow-moving limb had to move fast, and vice versa) at the ipsilateral body side, and (2) the identical and (3) converse 2:1 pattern at the contralateral body side. Findings revealed positive transfer of the identical and converse 2:1 pattern to the contralateral body side. However, no transfer of the learned pattern to its converse partner at the same body side was revealed. We propose a new memory representation model for coordination patterns, composed of an effector-independent and effector-specific component (dual-layer model). It is hypothesized that the general movement goal (i.e., moving one limb twice as fast as the other) constitutes the abstract, higher-level representation that may account for positive contralateral transfer. Conversely, the effector-specific component contains task-specific lower-level muscle synergies that are acquired through practice, prohibiting positive transfer when shifting task allocation within the same effectors. These findings are consistent with recent neuroscientific evidence for neuroplastic changes in distributed brain areas.