Inter-manual Transfer of Prism Adaptation - Case Study Example

Intermanual Transfer of Prism Adaptation Student’s Name Institutional Affiliation Abstract The intermanual transfer has been widely defined as the phenomenon where unilateral motor training arouses performance gains in the untrained limb and that of the trained limb. This study sort to find out whether mildly left-handers have a better intermanual transfer of the sensorimotor adaptation and whether those with mildly right hand indicate the better intermanual transfer of what is referred to as learning to motorically constant sequence. It equally intended to find out whether handedness is both discrete and continuous variables. The target sample use in the study was 30 students from the University of Warmick that are within the age of 18 and 25 years. The independent variables are the two conditions, which included dominant hand training and the sub-dominant hand training. On the other hand, the dependent variable is the degree of error. Findings of the study partially showed that left hand training show strong effect about the intermanual transfer as compared to right-hand training without considering handedness. However, the troubles encounter with the prediction is that degrees of handedness never showed a significant effect on the intermanual transfer of prism adapation. The practical implication of this particular study shows that nearly 50 percent of right-brain-damaged stroke survivors and an estimate of about 30 percent of those with left-brain-damaged stroke survivors show spatial neglect in the inpatient rehabilitation setting. Consequently, research is capable of benefiting the treatment of spatial neglect for those patients that have different degrees of handedness. Key Words: Intermanual transfer, handedness, continuous, discrete, Prism Adaptation Table of Contents Abstract 2 Table of Contents 3 Introduction 4 Intermanual Transfer 4 Prism Adaptation 5 Classical Paradigm 6 Extension 7 Intermanual Transfer and Handedness 7 Handedness as discrete and continuous variable 9 Objective of the Study 11 Hypothesis 12 Method 12 Participants 12 Apparatus 13 Experimental Design 13 Procedures 13 Debrief of the Participants 15 Results 15 Regression analysis 18 Discussion 21 Conclusion 21 References 22 Appendices 24 Introduction Intermanual Transfer Intermanual transfer is defined as a phenomenon where the unilateral motor training stimulates performance gains in the untrained limb together with the trained limb (Dickins, Sale, & Kamke, 2015). The acquisition of skill by one hand is made possible by the prior learning on the very skill but by the other hand. Intermanual transfer can equally be referred to as the transfer of motor skills the “unfected” hand, which is the trained hand, to the “affected” hand, which is the untrained one. According to Baraduc and Wolpert (2002), the understanding of intermanual transfer is made much possible when the transfer of visuo-motors skills is understood. As already pointed out in the above definition, intermanual transfer equally involves both the trained limb and the untrained limb. Visuo motor skill has been defined as the integration of motor skills and the visuo perception (Zhang, Kulsa, & Maloney, 2015). It is all about coordinating the vision with the body movements. For instance, eyes, head, and limbs are mostly in constant motion, which needs to be coordinated for the crucial functioning of the entire body. Consequently, the transfer of visuo-motors skills is the stimulation of a given part of the body that is not in motion or untrained to move or work in the same manner as the one in motion or at work (Baraduc & Wolpert, 2002). In simple terms, the intermanual transfer is the form of coordination of trained and untrained limb through the transfer of visuomotor skills (Zhang, Kulsa, & Maloney, 2015). Through imagery training, it is possible to transfer motor skill from the trained limb to the untrained even beyond physical practice. According to Land et al. (2016), the experience that the trained hand gets has a significant influence on the untrained contralateral homologous limb. In that case, it is possible for the untrained limb to perform a similar task when the other limb has conducted training. The adaptive motor learning is capable of transferring manually as pointed out by Block and Celnik (2013). It is the adaptation movement where the right hand may carry over the left hand when responding to the training with a disturbed vision signal. Prism Adaptation Prism adaptation is a form of procedural learning where the motor system adapts to the coordinates of the new visuospatial resulting from the prisms that displace the visual field. When the prisms are removed, the aftereffect can be used to measure the strength and degree of adaptation, and the spatial deviation of the actions of the motor in the opposite direction of the visual displaced obliged by the prism (Zhang, Kulsa, & Maloney, 2015). According to the earlier studies done on the mid-1960s, prism adaptation was found to be depending on the communication between the visual system and the motor. The interaction mostly induces what is referred to as a plastic change in the brain. Watanabe, Shinohara, and Shimojo (2011) describe procedural memory system to be an action system where the operations are shown through skilled behavior as well as cognitive procedures that are independent of any cognition. Consequently, prism adaptation is a clear explanation of the learning that comes from the motor system that adapts to the new visuospatial coordinates that are enforced by the prism displacing the visual field horizontally. According to Watanabe, Shinohara, and Shimojo (2011), a recalibration that exists between the motor system and sensory takes places automatically at primary levels with the aim of coping with the environmental changes. Adaptation occurs when perturbation in sensory feedback is brought in one’s action. Classical Paradigm Intermanual transfer can be best understood through a classical paradigm, which puts emphasis on dramatic unity, causality relation, and plausible motivation of constituent parts. As already pointed out, the body has numerous constituent parts that are in constant motion whose causality relation can be best described through the classical paradigm. It can be illustrated when one type numeral keypad using a non-dominant hand, for instance, left hand and starting from left to right. In that case, one would be required to start from right to left using the little finger, ring finger, and finally the middle typing keypad number 1, 2, and 3 in that order. After that, it starts from right back to the left and now index, middle, and ring finger on the keypad numbers 6, 5, and then 4 respectively (Zhang, Kulsa, & Maloney, 2015). The order in which typing is done is the original and the mirror order. Even though the motor adaptation has been extensively studied, not so much is known yet on the neural foundation of intermanual transfer of that adaptation. In that case, when one hand trains, there is the formation of a new representation of the learned movement about corresponding hemisphere. From the classical paradigm, use of one hand in training causes movement aftereffects of the trained hand, especially when using sham tDCS (Block & Celnik, 2013). Additionally when an experiment is performed where with visual and no visual feedback, it is possible to have a baseline error without feedback to be similar to the baseline with visual feedback. When there is a systematic movement error, the brain is expected to respond with a systematic change in motor behavior. Extension Intermanual Transfer and Handedness According to Redding and Wallace (2011), the subject of prism adaptation being right-handed has been investigated in a systematic way for nearly 50 years. However, no precise information is known concerning prism adaptation in left-handed issue. Since there has not been an investigation with the left-hander, Redding, and Wallace (2011) decided to find out whether there is a similarity between prism adaptation in the right-hander and that of the left-handers. That will help determine whether there is a relationship between asymmetric intermanual transfer and left-handedness. The intermanual transfer has been mostly associated with handedness because the two are significantly related to the functional specialization as well as hemispheric interactions. Chase and Seidler (2008) points out that handedness has been associated with a behavioral proficiency known as lateralization as well as the structural, functional differences that happen in the motor system. In the study conducted by Chase and Seidler (2008), it was hypothesized that individuals that are less actively handed are likely to show better intermanual transfer based on the studies indicating more bilateral brain activation as well as enlarged corpus callosum in such people. The study validated the hypothesis as those with not so strong left hand showing the better intermanual transfer of sensorimotor adaptation. On the contrary, right-handers with less actively handed right indicated the better intramanual transfer of succession learning to a motorical sequence that is constant (Chase & Seidler, 2008). Despite the fact that initial literature shows that there is an interaction between handedness and the nature of measure that is used in assessing hemispheric interactions, the degree of handedness envisages sensorimotor adaption transfer for just left-handed individuals who took part in the study but only show sequence learning transfer for the participants who were right handed. Chase and Seidler (2008) found that handedness is differently linked with hemispheric interactions for left and right-handers. Several possibilities still exist because the underlying relationship between handedness and the level of intermanual transfer remains unclear. Redding and Wallace (2011) found out that the same way right-handers adapt prismatic displacement is the same way lefthanders behavior. The authors never found any difference existing in the performance during exposure. Despite the handedness, the asymmetry that exists between right space and left space comes when the dominant hand is subjected to left displacement (Brenneman at al., 2008). In their conclusion, Redding and Wallace (2011) say that differential visual adaptation for nondominant as well as the dominant is similar in spite of the handedness. Chase and Seidler (2008) on the other hand believe that handedness scores have a relationship with factors that are capable of influencing internal transfer like engaging the insilateral hemisphere when movement as well as corpus collosum capacity. The two authors used data to demonstrate that there is an impact of degree of handedness on the quantity of motor learning that takes place (Bornschlegl, Fahle, & Redding, 2012). Additionally, the magnitude of intermanual transfer for both sensorimotor and sequence adaptation tasks. Chase and Seidler (2008) found out that degree of handedness has a relationship with an intermanual transfer of sensorimotor adaptation for the left-handed individuals who took part in the experiment. On the other hand, the degree of handedness had an association with the intermanual transfer of the participants with right-handed. In their findings, Chase and Seidler (2008) suggested that involvement of ipsilateral hemisphere when learning is capable of influencing the magnitude of intermanual transfer. Additionally, the outcome emphasizes the significance of considering both degree and direction of handedness when studying lateralization as well as intermanual transfer. It equally affirms that handedness needs to be looked at as continuous and not as discrete variable. Handedness as discrete and continuous variable Scientific study on handedness has to resolve numerous problems; however, the first and the most crucial one is that of frequency (Zhang, Kulsa, & Maloney, 2015). The literature review found out that left-handedness could be arranged some 1 to 40 percent. According to Annett (2002), left-handedness cannot be looked at as a “type” with an “essence” being elusive. Annett (2002) continues to say that handedness can only be a characteristic that changes continuously among strong right and strong left and many other mixed-handednesses (Schulze, Lüders, & Jäncke, 2002). Consequently, it is the variability is what should be explained and described. On the other hand, left or right-handedness has been described in various literature review as being 100 percent consistent in all tasks. Consequently, any form of disparity from this standard is classified as mixed. Handedness can equally be classified as the means of the continuum, which precisely is the degree or strength of preferred hand use frequently being measured as a continuous variable or as a percentage. Most of the researchers treat degree of handedness as a continuous variable with simple binary one, which is left or right. However, Henderson and Pehoski (2005) say that continuous distribution can be can be divided in numerous ways to come up with a discrete and mostly it is not easy to determine what was done. Most of the researchers are believed to be confusing mixed handedness and the exact size of the problem resulting from the handedness with the ambidexterity. According to Henderson & Pehoski (2005) points out that, there is the usefulness of using categories of hand preference regarding frequency of use. Based on such definition of handedness, there is both hand performance and hand preference, which makes it possible to formulate handedness in a broader perspective as regards to presentations or various types. When a child depicts unambiguous preferences on the hand to use and when the hand show superior performance over the other one, the child is said to have established handedness, and he or she can be considered to be right or left handed. On the other hand, when a child changes hands when handling tasks then there is the element of mixed-handedness, which is referred to as unestablished handedness as pointed out by Henderson and Pehoski (2005). The situation is referred as unestablished because the child is still developing. However, adults who swap their hands when handling tasks are equally referred to as mixed-handers. A situation where a child is inherently lefthander but still uses the right to handle tasks such as drawing and writing is mostly referred to as switched-handers. All these illustrations show that there are numerous ways of classifying handedness and not only through commonly known right and left. According to Annett (2002), the first step that researchers need to take when studying handedness is to realize that it is not a discrete variable of left or right but as a continuous one that is capable of being expressed in numerous levels between strong right and strong left. It is equally important to establish incidences for specific groups like the consistent right, consistent left, and the mixed handers. However, researchers such as Chase and Seidler (2008) look at the handedness as a continuous variable that relies on the performance as well as the preference on how one uses the hand. A study conducted by Annett (2002) showed that there is a clear linear relationship existing between relative hand skill and hand preference. It is clear that the three major classifications of handedness, which include left, right, and mixed-handedness, are overlapping, not discrete, but the strong preferences that exist between skill and preference cannot be disputed (Lefumat et al., 2015). Some researchers consider the overlap of the different groups of handedness as the ground upon which they classify it as a discrete variable. However, Annett (2002) consider this a continuous and should not be confused as discrete. Even though it is possible to classify handedness as continuous, the challenge is how to describe it in a way that will allow the creation of a reliable measurement of scale. However, discrete type regarding left and right are commonly used but misleading (Redding & Wallace, 2013). However, we can clearly see that one is capable of classifying handedness as either discrete or continuous based on some reasons (Thompson & Henriques, 2010). When one decides to only look at handedness as right handed and left-hander, it becomes a discrete variable whereas when one looks at it as having numerous classifications, then handedness becomes a continuous variable. The understanding the right classification is essential for researchers as it will ensure that they have a sufficient measurement scale whether in a quantitative or qualitative research. Objective of the Study The first objective of this study is to find out the effect of handedness on intermanual transfer. Under this objective, the study intends to find out whether mildly left-handers showed the better intermanual transfer of sensorimotor adaptation while those who are mildly right handed indicate the better intermanual transfer of sequence learning to a motorically constant sequence. The second objective is to determine whether handedness is both discrete and continuous variables. Under this objective, the study focuses on discovering how right and left handed individuals perform and the way different levels of handedness has an effect on intermanual transfer. Hypothesis 1. Left-hand training shows stronger effect on intermanual transfer than the right-hand training 2. Mildly left or right-handed people show the better intermanual transfer of prism adaptation. Method Participants Those who took part in the study were 30 undergraduate students from the University of Warwick. The age of those who participated ranged from 18 years and 25. The study did not record any other participant demographics. Additionally, every participant was treated based on the required ethical standards. Additionally, they filled the activity questionnaire as well as the Edinburgh Handedness Inventory (Chase & Seidler, 2008). They all signed the consent form that was approved by the University of Warwick. All of the participants had normal or corrected visual acuity and did not have any significant neurological history. The participants conducted an intermannual transfer of learning paradigm for sensorimotor adaptation and sequence learning task in a more of a counterbalanced order. Apparatus The apparatus that were used throughout the study include prism goggle that was used for deflected vision. Another apparatus include cardboard that was instrumentally used as a cover during the experiments done. A pen was equally used in the study to write down the outcome of the study and any other thing that needed to be recorded. Finally, there was a meter rule Experimental Design In the experiment, there were two categories of variables which include independent variable and dependent variables. There were two conditions for the independent variables; dominant hand training and sub-dominant hand training. The dependent variable was the measure of the degree of error. The study employed a mixed design where there was pre-exposure as well as post-exposure test for realignment. Participants were randomly assigned to groups, and a restriction was imposed to ensure that left and right-hand exposure groups were run successively. The measures of the terminal limb position in a sagittal pointing for every one of the 50 exposure trials in the two trials as there were three blocks of 10, 25, and finally 25 trials were recorded. Procedures Each of the participants was briefed on the type of experiment, and they were informed that perceptual motor coordination test would be given during which they would look through prisms. However, they were not informed about the nature of distortion, but the prisms were notified that prisms were capable of affecting their performance and therefore they needed to be more accurate when performing their tasks (Fernbach, 2011). The experiment is to measure handedness of participants using Edinburgh Handedness Inventory, which is a short questionnaire used in determining objectively whether a person is right handed or left handed. The subjects were required to reach the target at a fast but comfortable speed. The participant’s movement of the pointing arm was below the top face of the cardboard to prevent them from seeing their arm’s trajectory. When the participants’ performance is recorded, they were required to remove their arms and move the successive trial. The pointing task was done in three different conditions, which include Test trial, trial 1, and finally trial 2. Test Trial Condition: In this condition, participants were required to use their index figure to point at the targets presented, which included 20 targets placed at the center, 20 targets at the +21 and the last one at -20. The participants were given ten trials without prism goggles on, and they were pointing with both dominant and subdominant limb. Trial 1: Exposure Condition: In this section, participants were allowed to wear prismatic goggles that were fitted with wide field and prismatic lenses capable of inducing a 10-degree shift of the visual field that is to the right. In this case, half of the participants decided to use their dominant limb in pointing at the target whereas the other half used the sub-dominant limb. The pointing, in this case, is classified as that of the test trial where the pointing was invisible. Like in the previous tests, any error is recorded. Trial 2: Post-Exposure Condition: The participants were required to go for another 25 trials immediately after removing the goggles. In this particular situation, participants were instructed to use their opposite untrained limb in a random fixed order to point at the presented targets Debrief of the Participants Participants were debriefed to clearly understand their experience and any useful information for the study. Consequently, the information brought full understanding of the research’s purpose. Results The direct effect of the prismatic distortion on performance when under exposure is found not to be commensurable with what is known as after-effects of prism exposure. Consequently, the research decided to analyze the two different types of measures distinctively before thinking of joint implications. The findings showed a partial support of the hypothesis, which indicates that left-hand training never showed the stronger effect on intermanual transfer as compared to the right-hand training despite the handedness. Another area where the study looked at was the troubles that come with prediction. Degrees of handedness did not show significant effect regarding the intermanual transfer of prism adaptation. Table 1: Descriptive Statistics Condition Error_Score N Valid 30 30 Missing 0 0 Mean 1.50 3.75 Median 1.50 3.85 Mode 1 4 Std. Deviation .509 .531 Variance .259 .282 Sum 45 113 a. Multiple modes exist. The smallest value is shown From the Table 1, the population N (30) and no single element missed from the population for all the variables. The mean score (M=1.5 and 3.75) for condition and Error Score in that order indicates larger mean in Error score when compared to the situation. The standard deviation in each of the cases is (SD=0.509, 0.531) for condition and error score correspondingly. Figure 1: Error Scores (Y Axis) Versus the Type of Hand Training (X Axis), The figure shown above is a representation of error scores on the Y-axis and the type of hand Training on the X- axis. Consequently, larger values show a stronger intermanual transfer. Participants with left-hand training indicated the more intermanual transfer of prism adaptation, in spite of the degree of handedness. About the frequency, the results can be illustrated as shown in Table 2 Table 2: Condition Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Dominant hand training 15 50.0 50.0 50.0 Subdominant hand training 15 50.0 50.0 100.0 Total 30 100.0 100.0 Table 2 indicates that dominant hand training had 15(50%) of respondents whereas subdominant hand training only had 15(50%). Concerning the second variable, the descriptive statistics is indicated in the table shown below. Table 3 Error_Score Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 3 1 3.3 3.3 3.3 3 2 6.7 6.7 10.0 3 1 3.3 3.3 13.3 3 3 10.0 10.0 23.3 3 3 10.0 10.0 33.3 3 1 3.3 3.3 36.7 4 2 6.7 6.7 43.3 4 2 6.7 6.7 50.0 4 2 6.7 6.7 56.7 4 2 6.7 6.7 63.3 4 1 3.3 3.3 66.7 4 2 6.7 6.7 73.3 4 5 16.7 16.7 90.0 4 2 6.7 6.7 96.7 5 1 3.3 3.3 100.0 Total 30 100.0 100.0 Regression analysis Working on the relationship between these variables is attainable by performing regression analysis to determine how various conditions affect the error. Based on the research design it can be seen that the two independent variables are Independent Variable Dominant hand training and, Sub-dominant hand training Dependent Variables Degree of error Condition = α + βError + Ɛ Table 4: Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1 .14 .020 -.015 .535 The summary of the model indicates that R-square is 0.02 which means that 2% of the variables are illustrated in the model. The analysis of variance is shown in the table below:- Table 5: Analysis of variance Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Regression .161 1 .161 .564 .000 Residual 8.013 28 .286 Total 8.175 29 The significance of the model P-value equals to 0.000, which is, less than 0.05, therefore, the model can be considered fit for analysis and come up with the conclusion on the relationship. The table is shown below shows the coefficient of the analysis. Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. B Std. Error Beta 1 (Constant) 3.973 .309 12.864 .000 Condition -.147 .195 -.140 -.751 .000 It can be seen that p-value is 0.001 and it is less than 0.05, which shows that null hypothesis should be rejected consequently conclusion is that there is the impact of the error on condition. Additionally, the relationship is a negative due to the negative coefficient of -0.147. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) In this section, the hypothesis testing is done using ANOVA and as already seen the investigated variable is Whether degree of handedness affect intermanual transfer of prism adaptation Whereas the hypothesized variable is to find out whether Left-hand training will show a stronger effect on intermanual transfer than right-hand training Mildly left/right-handed individuals will show better intermanual transfer of prism adaptation. Table: Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta Squared Corrected Model .161a 1 .161 .564 .459 .020 Intercept 422.625 1 422.625 1476.727 .000 .981 Condition .161 1 .161 .564 .459 .020 Error 8.013 28 .286 Total 430.800 30 Corrected Total 8.175 29 As seen in the table above, the p-value is 0.459, which is greater than 0.05 showing that the null hypothesis is accepted and that is, left-hand training will show a stronger effect on intermanual transfer than right-hand training and mildly left/right-handed individuals will show better intermanual transfer of prism adaptation. Between-Subjects Factors Value Label N Condition 1 Dominant hand training 15 2 Subdominant hand training 15 Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variances F df1 df2 Sig. .117 1 28 .735 It can be seen from the above diagrams that null hypothesis test that the error variance of the dependent variable is the same across the groups, and therefore the null is accepted since the p-value, which is 0.735 is greater than 0.05 which shows there is no statistically significance. Discussion In the study, the investigation was on the effect of degree of handedness on the intermannual transfer of skill learning. In the hypothesis, it was said that less strongly handed participants were expected to show better intermanual transfer based on the studies that show more bilateral brain activation as well as the enlarged corpus callosum in the participants. The predictions have been partially supported based on study’s findings, which states that less strongly handed left-handers are expected to indicate the better intermanual transfer of sensorimotor adaptation. Additionally, the degree of handedness has effect in the intermanual transfer of prismatic adaptation. The statistical analysis indicates that the null hypothesis is rejected because the p-value is 0.001, which is less than 0.05. The negative coefficient shows that the variables have a negative relationship. Additionally, the relationship between handedness and error shows larger values, which means stronger intermanual transfer. For instance, those who are left-hand training show stronger intermnual transfer of prism adaptation regardless of the degree of handedness as show in figure 1 above. Conclusion The findings showed a partial support of the hypothesis, which shows that left-hand training never showed the stronger effect on intermanual transfer as compared to the right-hand training despite the handedness. Another area where the study looked at was the troubles that come with prediction. Degrees of handedness did not show significant effect regarding the intermanual transfer of prism adaptation. The study shows that nearly 50 percent of those who are of right-brain-damaged stroke survivors and nearly 30% of left-brain-damaged stroke survivors show spatial neglect in the inpatient rehabilitation setting. Consequently, this research can be used to find treatment for spatial neglect for patients with dissimilar levels of handedness. Additionally, the p-value of 0.001 Read More

Consequently, the transfer of visuo-motors skills is the stimulation of a given part of the body that is not in motion or untrained to move or work in the same manner as the one in motion or at work (Baraduc & Wolpert, 2002). In simple terms, the intermanual transfer is the form of coordination of trained and untrained limb through the transfer of visuomotor skills (Zhang, Kulsa, & Maloney, 2015). Through imagery training, it is possible to transfer motor skill from the trained limb to the untrained even beyond physical practice.

According to Land et al. (2016), the experience that the trained hand gets has a significant influence on the untrained contralateral homologous limb. In that case, it is possible for the untrained limb to perform a similar task when the other limb has conducted training. The adaptive motor learning is capable of transferring manually as pointed out by Block and Celnik (2013). It is the adaptation movement where the right hand may carry over the left hand when responding to the training with a disturbed vision signal.

Prism Adaptation Prism adaptation is a form of procedural learning where the motor system adapts to the coordinates of the new visuospatial resulting from the prisms that displace the visual field. When the prisms are removed, the aftereffect can be used to measure the strength and degree of adaptation, and the spatial deviation of the actions of the motor in the opposite direction of the visual displaced obliged by the prism (Zhang, Kulsa, & Maloney, 2015). According to the earlier studies done on the mid-1960s, prism adaptation was found to be depending on the communication between the visual system and the motor.

The interaction mostly induces what is referred to as a plastic change in the brain. Watanabe, Shinohara, and Shimojo (2011) describe procedural memory system to be an action system where the operations are shown through skilled behavior as well as cognitive procedures that are independent of any cognition. Consequently, prism adaptation is a clear explanation of the learning that comes from the motor system that adapts to the new visuospatial coordinates that are enforced by the prism displacing the visual field horizontally.

According to Watanabe, Shinohara, and Shimojo (2011), a recalibration that exists between the motor system and sensory takes places automatically at primary levels with the aim of coping with the environmental changes. Adaptation occurs when perturbation in sensory feedback is brought in one’s action. Classical Paradigm Intermanual transfer can be best understood through a classical paradigm, which puts emphasis on dramatic unity, causality relation, and plausible motivation of constituent parts.

As already pointed out, the body has numerous constituent parts that are in constant motion whose causality relation can be best described through the classical paradigm. It can be illustrated when one type numeral keypad using a non-dominant hand, for instance, left hand and starting from left to right. In that case, one would be required to start from right to left using the little finger, ring finger, and finally the middle typing keypad number 1, 2, and 3 in that order. After that, it starts from right back to the left and now index, middle, and ring finger on the keypad numbers 6, 5, and then 4 respectively (Zhang, Kulsa, & Maloney, 2015).

The order in which typing is done is the original and the mirror order. Even though the motor adaptation has been extensively studied, not so much is known yet on the neural foundation of intermanual transfer of that adaptation. In that case, when one hand trains, there is the formation of a new representation of the learned movement about corresponding hemisphere. From the classical paradigm, use of one hand in training causes movement aftereffects of the trained hand, especially when using sham tDCS (Block & Celnik, 2013).

Additionally when an experiment is performed where with visual and no visual feedback, it is possible to have a baseline error without feedback to be similar to the baseline with visual feedback.

Read More