Abstract
The contralateral control hypothesis suggests that motor behavior is mediated by a contralateral and ipsilateral control system. This hypothesis states that the contralateral side of the brain is responsible for the initiation and control of movement, while the ipsilateral side is responsible for providing the necessary sensory input for motor control. This paper explores the current research surrounding this hypothesis, as well as its implications for the study and treatment of movement disorders. Additionally, current models of contralateral control are discussed, as well as potential future research topics.
Introduction
The contralateral control hypothesis states that the contralateral side of the brain is responsible for the initiation and control of movement, while the ipsilateral side is responsible for providing the necessary sensory input for motor control (Norman & Shallice, 1986). This hypothesis has become increasingly important in the study of motor control as researchers have sought to explain the neural mechanisms of movement. Contralateral control is believed to be important for the coordination of movements, such as those used in walking and running, as well as the control of fine motor movements, such as those used in writing (Norman & Shallice, 1986). Additionally, understanding contralateral control may provide insight into the neural basis of motor disorders, such as Parkinson’s disease, stroke, and cerebral palsy (Norman & Shallice, 1986).
Current Models of Contralateral Control
Researchers have proposed several models to explain the neural basis of contralateral control. The most widely accepted model is the two-level model, which suggests that the contralateral side of the brain is responsible for the initiation and control of movement, while the ipsilateral side is responsible for providing the necessary sensory input for motor control (Norman & Shallice, 1986). This model is based on the idea that the contralateral side of the brain is responsible for the initiation and control of movement, while the ipsilateral side is responsible for providing the necessary sensory input for motor control.
Another model of contralateral control is the distributed control model, which suggests that both the contralateral and ipsilateral sides of the brain are involved in the initiation and control of movement (Hallett, 2005). This model suggests that both sides of the brain are responsible for providing sensory input and modulating motor output, and that both sides of the brain are involved in the control of movement.
Implications
The study of contralateral control has implications for the study and treatment of movement disorders. For example, understanding contralateral control may provide insight into the neural basis of movement disorders, such as Parkinson’s disease, stroke, and cerebral palsy (Norman & Shallice, 1986). Additionally, understanding contralateral control may lead to the development of new treatments for movement disorders, such as the use of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) or transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to modulate contralateral control (Hallett, 2005).
Conclusion
Contralateral control is an important concept in the study of motor control and has implications for the study and treatment of movement disorders. The two-level model and the distributed control model are two models that have been proposed to explain the neural basis of contralateral control. Additionally, understanding contralateral control may lead to the development of new treatments for movement disorders, such as the use of transcranial magnetic stimulation or transcranial direct current stimulation.
References
Hallett, M. (2005). Transcranial magnetic stimulation and transcranial direct current stimulation: Mechanisms and clinical implications. Handbook of clinical neurology, 79, 431-443.
Norman, D. A., & Shallice, T. (1986). Attention to action: Willed and automatic control of behavior. In R.J. Davidson, G.E. Schwartz & D. Shapiro (Eds.), Consciousness and self-regulation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 4, pp. 1-18). New York: Plenum.