J Phys Fitness Sports Med, 5 (5): 349-359 (2016)

DOI: 10.7600/jpfsm.5.349

JPFSM: Review Article

Interlimb coordination from a psychological perspective

Tetsuro Muraoka1*, Kento Nakagawa2,3, Kouki Kato4, Weihuang Qi5 and Kazuyuki Kanosue4
1
College of Economics, Nihon University, 1-3-2 Misakicho, Chiyodaku, Tokyo 101-8360, Japan
2
Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, The University of Tokyo, 3-8-1 Komaba, Meguroku, Tokyo 153-8902, Japan
3
Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, 8 Ichibancho, Chiyodaku, Tokyo 102-8472, Japan
4
Laboratory of Sport Neuroscience, Faculty of Sport Sciences, Waseda University, 2-579-15 Mikajima, Tokorozawa,
Saitama 359-1192, Japan
5
Graduate School of Sport Sciences, Waseda University, 2-579-15 Mikajima, Tokorozawa, Saitama 359-1192, Japan

Received: September 2, 2016 / Accepted: October 7, 2016

Abstract During coordination of the movement of two limbs, the movements often interfere
with each other, i.e., interlimb coordination is constrained. Many movement-related param-
eters such as movement direction, movement frequency, the coupling of limbs, neural network
among limbs, and muscle homology are considered constraints of interlimb coordination, and
they are roughly consolidated into two constraints, a neuromuscular constraint, and a percep-
tual-cognitive constraint. Interlimb coordination is considered to be governed by a coalition of
neuromuscular and perceptual-cognitive constraints. On the other hand, spontaneous interlimb
coordination is considered purely perceptual in nature. In this review, we focused on an influ-
ential study on interlimb coordination published in Nature by Mechsner et al. (2001), which
supported the latter psychological approach. Thorough verification of the paper with reference
to related studies revealed that no studies have yet proposed decisive contrary evidence against
the psychological approach. Rather, investigation of interlimb coordination with perceptual-
cognitive perspective has uncovered new findings. As a next psychological approach, the
proposal of a unified and predictive explanation for movements is required. In addition, neural
mechanisms that connect perceptual-cognitive representation to an appropriate motor com-
mand, if any, should be addressed.
Keywords : interlimb coordination, psychology, sparse coding, salience

ments of different limbs were mainly conducted in the

Introduction
In our daily movements (e.g., pouring hot coffee into
a mug using the right hand while holding the mug in the
left hand), we smoothly and effortlessly control both
hands. We may think it easy to coordinate different parts
of the body, maybe because we unconsciously choose and
perform easy movements rather than difficult movements.
For example, can you rotate the wrist in the clockwise
direction while simultaneously rotating the index finger
of the same arm in the counterclockwise direction?1) Can
you rotate the wrist in the clockwise direction while si-
multaneously rotating the ankle on the same side in the
counterclockwise direction? Many kinds of movements
cannot (or are difficult to) be performed with two body
parts simultaneously, but can be performed by each body
part separately.
Over 100 years ago, it was noticed that movements of
the two limbs interfered with each other during simultane-
ous movement of the limbs under different spatiotemporal
characteristics1,2). Studies on how we coordinate move-
*Correspondence: muraoka.tetsurou@nihon-u.ac.jp
field of experimental psychology until the early 1970s,
but they did not draw much attention3). However, after
the seminal works published on interlimb coordination by
Kelso and colleagues in the late 1970s4,5), many research-
ers became more active in conducting experiments on in-
terlimb coordination. The reason for this is that interlimb
coordination can be used as an experimental model not
only for studies on its control mechanisms, but also for a
wide range of research areas such as the reference frame
for limb movement6-11), generalization12,13) and transfer14-18)
of motor learning, change in neural, perceptual, and
motor function with aging19-24), and neurological disor-
ders25-33). The difference in the movement phase between
the two body parts (i.e., relative phase) is often used as an
index of coordination, and features of the relative phase
are mathematically described by the Haken-Keslo-Bunz
(HKB) model34-36). For example, when performing cycli-
cal abduction and adduction of both index fingers in the
horizontal plane, the relative phases for simultaneous
abduction/adduction of both fingers [i.e., mirror direction;
in-phase (Fig. 1A and 1C)] and alternate abduction/adduc-
tion of both fingers [i.e., parallel direction; anti-phase (Fig.
350 JPFSM : Muraoka T, et al.

1B and 1D)] are defined as 0˚ and 180˚, respectively. The
movements with these relative phases can be performed
stably without a lot of practice compared to cases of other
relative phases such as 90˚37,38). An anti-phase movement
unintentionally changes to an in-phase movement with
increasing movement frequency, and the opposite phase
transition from an anti-phase to an in-phase movement
rarely occurs. Moreover, the critical fluctuation39) and
critical slowing down40), one of the key features for self-
organization, are observed in association with the phase
transition. As shown above, it has been experimentally
and theoretically clarified that interlimb coordination is
constrained by spatiotemporal parameters of movement41).
Possible constraints of interlimb coordination can be
roughly consolidated into two constraints2,41-43): “a neu-
romuscular constraint” and “a perceptual-cognitive con-
straint”. Most researchers originally thought that interlimb
coordination was governed by a coalition of neuromus-
cular and perceptual-cognitive constraints. However, in
2001, Mechsner et al. published a revolutionary article
in Nature, which claimed that “(t)he symmetry tendency
in bimanual movements is independent of muscular and
motoric constraints and is thus purely perceptual in na-
ture”44). Because their claims seemed to be too extreme
(e.g., purely perceptual, no need of translation between a
motor and a perceptual representation)11,44-47), many subse-
quent publications tried to propose contrary evidence (e.g.,
a special issue in J Mot Behav48-61)). Surprisingly, although
15 years have passed and many papers on interlimb co-
ordination have been published since the Mechsner et
al. article in Nature, there still has been no consensus
whether interlimb coordination is governed by a coalition
of neuromuscular and perceptual-cognitive constraints or
if the control principle of interlimb coordination is purely
perceptual. The present review, therefore, tries to verify
Mechsner’s claims and the arguments against them along
with a description of the three experiments in Mechsner’s
article in Nature44), and attempts to predict the next psy-
chological approach to interlimb coordination.
Experiment 1: Index finger abduction-adduction in mir-
ror/parallel directions with different forearm postures
Subjects performed cyclical abduction and adduction
of both index fingers in the horizontal plane either in a
mirror (Fig. 1A) or in a parallel (Fig. 1B) direction. The

Figure 1

A B

C D

joint angle of joint angle of

left finger left finger

joint angle of joint angle of

right finger right finger

time time

Fig. 1 Coordination of cyclical abduction and adduction of both index fingers.

When homologous muscles contract simultaneously, the fingers move in a mirror direction (in-phase) (A) and the movement
phase is the same (C), which results in 0˚ of relative phase. When the homologous muscles contract alternately, the fingers move
in a parallel direction (anti-phase) (B) and the movement phase is the opposite (D), which results in 180˚ of relative phase.
 JPFSM : Interlimb coordination from a psychological perspective
posture of the forearm was maintained either in a pro-
nated (i.e., palm down) or in a supinated (i.e., palm up)
position. When the forearm position is congruent for both
limbs, co-contraction of the homologous muscles will re-
sult in a mirror directional movement. When the forearm
position is incongruent for both limbs (e.g., the right limb
in the pronated position and the left limb in the supinated
position), co-contraction of the homologous muscles will
result in a parallel directional movement. Hence, it is pos-
sible to investigate whether interlimb coordination has a
tendency toward co-activation of the homologous muscles
or toward perceptual, spatial symmetry.
The results were very clear that a mirror directional
movement was more stable compared to a parallel direc-
tional movement independent of the forearm posture, and
that an involuntary phase transition from a parallel to a
mirror directional movement occurred at high movement
frequency. Mechsner et al. concluded that “the symme-
try tendency in the bimanual finger oscillation model is
a tendency towards perceptual, spatial symmetry, rather
than towards co-activation of homologous muscles”44). In
order to clarify whether interlimb or interjoint coordina-
tion is constrained by co-activation of the homologous
(or iso-functional) muscles or by perceptual, spatial sym-
metry, several experiments, in which subjects performed
coordinated movements with two different postures,
were conducted utilizing extension-flexion of both index
fingers62-64), extension-flexion of both wrists65), radial-
ulnar flexion of both wrists66,67), extension-flexion of the
ipsilateral wrist and elbow68,69), extension-flexion of the
ipsilateral wrist and ankle10,70-72), pronation-supination of
the forearm and internal-external rotation of the ipsilat-
eral leg73), and extension-flexion of the ipsilateral finger
and toe74). Some studies showed similar results as that
of experiment 1 that interlimb coordination only had a
tendency toward perceptual, spatial symmetry (i.e., mir-
ror direction in the horizontal plane or the same direction
in the sagittal plane)10,68,69,71,72). On the other hand, there
are studies showing that interlimb coordination was gov-
erned by both neuromuscular and perceptual-cognitive
constraints2,62,65-67,70,73,74) or by only neuromuscular con-
straint63,64).
Based on the results that interlimb coordination had
a tendency toward co-activation of the homologous
muscles63,64), and not toward perceptual, spatial symmetry,
which was completely opposite to the results of experi-
ment 1, it was pointed out that the conclusion obtained by
the psychological approach to interlimb coordination was
incorrect56,61,63). As a rebuttal to this, Mechsner claimed
that the coordination of extension-flexion of both index
fingers, used in those studies, could be explained well
by the relative-salience hypothesis, one of the perceptual
grouping principles45,46). In the relative-salience hypothe-
sis, 1) cyclical joint movements such as flexion-extension
of the index finger tend to be conceived as a stream of a
unified event, and 2) if a single point in a unified event
351
is perceptually conceived as the most salient or accentu-
ated subevent (c.f. anchoring75-78)), the sequences of the
most salient subevents prefer to go together in concur-
rent two event streams. The results of the sensorimotor
coordination between repetitive sound (i.e., metronome)
and cyclical extension-flexion of the index finger of one
hand showed that flexion on the beat was more stable
compared to extension on the beat, and a less stable pat-
tern of extension on the beat abruptly changed to a more
stable pattern of flexion on the beat2,79-82). Since repetitive
sound is conceived as a more salient event compared to
pause between sounds, the results of the sensorimotor
coordination (i.e., stable pattern of flexion on the beat)
can be explained by the relative salient hypothesis with
an assumption that flexion is the most salient subevent in
a stream of extension-flexion. Similarly, coordination of
extension-flexion of both index fingers can be explained
by the relative salience hypothesis as follows: flexion, the
most salient subevent, of the right and left fingers prefer
to go together. Moreover, the following studies indirectly
support the relative salience hypothesis. In the case that
the salience of finger extension is greater than that of fin-
ger flexion due to haptic sensation coupled with extension
(i.e., tapping by extension), extension on the beat became
more stable than flexion on the beat, and the phase tran-
sition from extension on the beat to flexion on the beat
occurred81). When introducing the auditory and haptic
stimuli coupled with finger flexion for each side, the anti-
phase (e.g., extending the right finger while flexing the
left finger) became stable83) because the coordination of
both fingers could be conceived as a dual task paradigm
of stable sensorimotor coordination of each finger. The in-
phase of extension-flexion of both wrists was conceived
as a repetition of a single unit (i.e., a synchronized subev-
ent of both wrists), whereas the anti-phase was conceived
as two units (i.e., the alternate occurrence of subevent of
each wrist)84). Double metronome for one extension-flex-
ion cycle of the index finger results in flexion on the beat
for each finger even during the anti-phase, and hence, the
anti-phase became more stable with the help of a double
metronome compared to a single metronome85).
Although the relative-salience hypothesis seems to be
plausible, it is criticized as a post hoc rationalization49) be-
cause it may be able to produce an ad hoc psychological
explanation for any coordination phenomenon. For exam-
ple, if the results of experiment 1 had shown a tendency
toward co-activation of abductors, it could have been
explained as the coordination of index finger abduction-
adduction having a tendency toward synchronization of
abduction, because abduction was more salient compared
to adduction for some psychological or neuromuscular
reasons. To sum up, experiment 1 investigated whether
bimanual coordination could be described by a psycho-
logical approach, not whether bimanual coordination was
governed by a neuromuscular constraint.
352 Figure 2 JPFSM : Muraoka T, et al.

A B

C D

Fig. 2 Alternate two fingers tapping in both hands.

Subjects performed alternate tapping of two fingers with their palmar surface bimanually. Black and white arrows indicate the
fingers used for tapping. These two fingers of both hands are congruent (A and C) or incongruent (B and D). The forearm pos-
ture of both hands is congruent (A and B) or incongruent (C and D). In A, B, C, and D, the tapping is more stable when the tap-
ping of both fingers, as indicated by the arrows with the same color, is synchronized.

bination. Control mechanisms are different for a discrete

Experiment 2: Bimanual finger tapping in symmetrical/
parallel modes
Subjects performed alternate two-finger tapping with
each hand simultaneously. When the two fingers were
congruent for both hands [i.e., the index finger (I) and
middle finger (M) for both hands (Fig. 2A)], the co-
activation of the homologous muscles resulted in a mirror
pattern [(_I-I_), (M_-_M), (_I-I_), …]. When the two
fingers were incongruent for both hands [i.e., the right I
and M, and the left M and ring finger (R)(Fig. 2B)], the
co-activation of the homologous muscles only occurred in
a spatial parallel pattern [(_I-_R), (M_-M_), (_I-_R), …].
Thus, if the coordination of bimanual tapping has a ten-
dency toward co-activation of the homologous muscles,
a parallel pattern should be more stable compared to a
mirror pattern when the fingers are incongruent for both
hands. If the coordination of bimanual tapping has a ten-
dency toward perceptual, spatial symmetry, a mirror pat-
tern should be more stable compared to a parallel pattern
even when the fingers are incongruent for both hands.
The results clearly showed no tendency toward co-
activation of the homologous muscles with the incongru-
ent finger combination, but showed a tendency toward
perceptual, spatial symmetry irrespective of finger com-
movement like finger tapping and for a continuous move-
ment like cyclical finger abduction-adduction86-89), but the
results are, nevertheless, similar to the results of experi-
ment 1. Riek and Woolley90) tested the same finger tap-
ping paradigm as in experiment 2, but with incongruent
as well as congruent forearm postures (Fig. 2C and 2D as
well as Fig. 2A and 2B), which is a similar procedure to
experiment 1. Tapping is always done by finger flexion
(i.e., contact with the palmar surface of the finger). Their
results showed that the coordination of congruent fingers
(Fig. 2A and 2C) had a tendency toward co-activation of
the homologous muscles irrespective of the forearm pos-
ture. That is, a parallel pattern was more stable compared
to a mirror pattern when the forearm posture was incon-
gruent (Fig. 2C). Following the same rationality used in
experiment 1, the results of Riek and Woolley mean that
bimanual finger tapping has a tendency toward co-con-
traction of the homologous muscles, not toward perceptu-
al, spatial symmetry. This is contrary to the conclusion of
experiment 2. However, their results with incongruent fin-
gers (Fig. 2B and 2D) showed that a more stable pattern
with congruent and incongruent forearm postures were
mirror and parallel patterns, respectively, which meant
no tendency toward co-activation of the homologous
 JPFSM : Interlimb coordination from a psychological perspective
muscles. Because there might be a hierarchy in the con-
trollability among fingers in the order of I > M > R91-93),
Riek and Woolley proposed the hypothesis that “the more
controllable finger in each pair are synchronized”. On the
other hand, Mechsner explained the two-finger tapping of
both hands as a tendency toward perceptual, spatial sym-
metry in a hand-centered reference frame11). In the hand-
centered reference frame, sequence tapping in the order
of I and M has the same directional characteristic as se-
quence tapping in the order of M and R irrespective of the
forearm posture. Indeed, a hand-centered reference frame
is used in the premotor and posterior parietal cortices for
the representation of the space surrounding the hands
for grasping94-97). The results obtained using bimanual
4-finger tapping98) could be explained both by a tendency
toward symmetry in the hand-centered reference frame
and by the synchronization of a more controllable finger.
Although it is unknown which explanation is appropriate,
the results of experiment 2 and some above-mentioned
studies showed no tendency toward co-activation of the
homologous muscles in bimanual finger tapping.
Neural crosstalk is considered a possible neuromuscu-
lar constraint for movements41,42). It is well known that
the activity (contraction and relaxation of muscles) of
one limb affects not only the corticospinal (or motoneu-
ron) excitability of the muscles employed in the activity,
but also the excitability of the resting muscles of other
limbs99-109). This kind of influence from the activity of one
limb to the resting muscles in other limbs is most pro-
nounced between the homologous muscles110), but often
spread to the non-homologous muscles111,112). This kind of
influence is highly task-dependent104). The influence of a
cyclical movement on other resting limbs in terms of neu-
ral crosstalk enhances the preferred coordination pattern
when moving both limbs cyclically99,100,113-115), and it is
flexibly tuned in accordance with a change in posture99).
In addition, it was shown that the extent of modulation of
corticospinal excitability in a resting wrist muscle, which
enhances the preferred coordination pattern of the wrist
and ankle (i.e, in-phase; same directional movement), was
correlated with the time to transition from the anti-phase
(i.e., opposite directional movement) to the in-phase102).
At first glance, this correlation between the neural cross-
talk and performance of interlimb coordination proved
that interlimb coordination was mainly governed by the
neuromuscular constraint, which is contrary to the results
of experiments 1 and 2. It should be noticed here that the
anti-phase, as well as in-phase, is a stable coordination
pattern in a variety of phase relationships between 0˚ and
180˚. In addition, Fig. 6 of the study by McIntyre-Robin-
son and Byblow102) showed that the neural crosstalk that
enhanced anti-phase coordination was seen in four out of
17 subjects, but phase transition from the anti-phase to
the in-phase was seen in “all” subjects. Therefore, neural
crosstalk may be able to explain the stable in-phase coor-
dination, but not why the anti-phase coordination is also
353
stable. In other words, neural crosstalk is not suitable as
the main constraint for interlimb coordination, which is
consistent with the results of experiments 1 and 2.
Experiment 3: Bimanual cycling at a non-harmonic
frequency ratio under symmetric visual feedback
Subjects were instructed to circle two visible flags by
way of two cranks without visual information of the mov-
ing arms. The flags moved in accordance with the move-
ment of the cranks, but each crank had different gear ratios
so that a 4:3 frequency ratio in the cranks resulted in an
iso-frequency in the flags. Subjects practiced the in-phase
(i.e., flags revolve in a counter direction at the same speed,
both flags starting at the 12 o’clock position) and anti-
phase (i.e., flags revolve in a counter direction at the same
speed, one flag starting at the 12 o’clock position and the
other flag starting at the 6 o’clock position) flag coordina-
tion for 15 to 20 min. If the bimanual coordination tends
toward perceptual, spatial symmetry, the in-phase in the
flags should be more stable compared to the anti-phase in
the flags, and the phase transition from the anti-phase to
the in-phase in the flags should occur irrespective of the
activation timing of the muscles of both limbs.
The results showed that the in-phase in the flags was
more stable compared to the anti-phase in the flags, and
that a phase transition from the anti-phase to the in-phase
in the flags occurred. Almost the same coordination phe-
nomenon was observed when the left flag was circled by
an experimenter and the right flag was circled by a sub-
ject. Since the bimanual movements with a non-harmonic
frequency relationship (i.e., 4:3), which is considered
to be almost impossible to perform for naïve subjects116)
could be performed under the visual feedback of flags
with the simplest frequency relationship (i.e., 1:1), Mech-
sner concluded that the “symmetry and antiphase in the
flags can be achieved in visual space even though there
is no specific translation of characteristic body activity
patterns into these characteristic perceptual patterns”44).
He regarded the course of practice to circle the cranks for
the in- and anti-phase in the flags as “figuring out and sta-
bilizing a more and more suitable and economic way of
representing the practiced movements rather than estab-
lishing body-defined movement patterns by way of rep-
etition”46), which suggests that the Body-World is sparsely
coded (the sparse coding principle, the economical coding
principle)45,46). The sparse coding principle means that
“many movement features that may be perceptible in
principle are neither addressed nor perceived”45). Similar
to the results of experiment 3, several studies showed
that difficult bimanual movements with a non-harmonic
frequency relationship could be performed easily with the
help of visual feedback that integrates kinematic informa-
tion of both hands (relative angle as Lissajous curve117),
relative velocity as a line118,119)). These studies used bi-
manual circling produced by a relatively complicated
354 JPFSM : Muraoka T, et al.
muscle activation pattern compared to a single joint recip-
rocating movement (e.g., extension-flexion produced by
alternate activation of the extensors and flexors), which
might hide the possible effect of co-activation of the ho-
mologous muscles on bimanual coordination. However,
even when using a single joint reciprocating movement,
a visual feedback that integrates kinematic information
of both arms enabled naïve subjects to perform a diffi-
cult relative phase other than 0˚ and 180˚ (e.g., 90˚) with
ease120-126), though non-integrated visual feedback (i.e., two
flags move symmetrically or iso-directionally during anti-
phase) could not contribute to, or even destabilized coor-
dination18,127,128). Therefore, it is plausible that movements
rely on the sparse coding principle. Some studies showed
that a bimanual discrete movement was constrained in
response to an identified movement’s goal43,129-131), which
is consistent with the sparse coding principle. Thus, it can
be said that the interlimb coordination phenomenon origi-
nates at the level of how movement is perceptually and
cognitively conceived in its environment, and not at the
level of how movement is described in terms of kinetics
and kinematics (c.f., internal and external focus in motor
learning132,133)).
Mechsner’s psychological approach
Based on thorough verification of experiments 1, 2
and 3, it may be safe to say that interlimb coordination
is, at least partly, constrained at the perceptual-cognitive
level. This is also supported by some studies that showed
the characteristics of interlimb coordination (e.g., two
stable modes of the in-phase and anti-phase, more stable
in-phase compared to anti-phase) appearing even when
the neuromuscular factors were partly or completely re-
moved by means of investigating bimanual coordination
of patients without somatosensory feedback bimanually
or unimanually134), motor imagery of bimanual coordina-
tion135,136), coordination between active limb movement
and passively moving limb137-140), coordination between
active limb movement and phantom limb141), interlimb co-
ordination between persons74,142-149), coordination between
active limb movement and visual stimulus142,147,150-152), and
perception of interstimulus coordination153-155).
The unsettled problem is whether the control principle
of interlimb coordination is purely perceptual. Because
the connection between movements and perception-
cognition is very tight, it seems impossible to remove
the perceptual-cognitive factor from movements as
the above-mentioned studies did. Mechsner stated that
“(m)any bodily movement characteristics are perceptible,
in the first place, by vision as well as by proprioception,
and, in part, by way of other sensory modalities such as
audition. Thus, by definition, they are open to inclusion
in a perceptual-cognitive control scheme”45). That is, any
neuromuscular constraint can be replaced by an ad hoc
perceptual-cognitive constraint. In addition, Mechsner
clearly stated that “evidence for body-related control can-
not be taken as evidence against a perceptual-cognitive
approach”45). Therefore, it seems quite difficult to propose
contrary evidence against Mechsner’s claim, which may
be a serious issue from the viewpoint of falsifiability pro-
posed by Karl Popper.
It is important to note that Mechsner’s study published
in Nature was not conducted in order to determine whether
movements were founded upon a coalition of neuromus-
cular and perceptual-cognitive constraints. It is wrong to
consider that his article proposed a dichotomy between
perceptual-cognitive constraint and neuromuscular con-
straint. He considered that the perceptual-cognitive and
neuromuscular accounts of movements represent different
levels of explanation and that a psychological approach
originally includes (takes into account) neuromuscular
factors as tools to execute movements. The relevance of
neuromuscular factors would not contradict a perceptual-
cognitive approach because perception and cognition
have been evolving to cope with neuromuscular factors.
This means that perception and cognition interact with
the economy and efficiency at the neuromuscular level90)
(e.g., efficient neural control using co-activation of the ho-
mologous muscles is coupled with the feeling of ease and
comfort). His article tried to clarify whether constraints of
movements were perceived and considered on a psycho-
logical level of perception, cognition, emotion, and so on.
Therefore, it is a wrongly posed problem whether or not
movements are founded upon a coalition of neuromuscular
and perceptual-cognitive constraints. On the other hand,
a psychological approach in the future should propose a
unified and predictive explanation for movements instead
of an ad hoc and post hoc explanation. “The issue of how
and why appropriate motor patterns directly correspond to
perceptual-cognitive representations”54) has to be resolved.
Conclusion
In this review, we focused on an influential study on
interlimb coordination published by Mechsner et al. Al-
though not many researchers agree with their claim that
the control principle of interlimb coordination is purely
perceptual, several studies have been conducted to inves-
tigate interlimb coordination from a perceptual-cognitive
perspective. Thus, it can be said that the psychological
approach has achieved certain success in the field of mo-
tor control research. In future studies, a psychological ap-
proach needs to propose a unified and predictive explana-
tion for movements. In addition, neural mechanisms that
connect perceptual-cognitive representation to appropriate
motor command, if any, should be addressed.
Conflict of Interests
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests
regarding the publication of this article.
 JPFSM : Interlimb coordination from a psychological perspective
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by KAKENHI Grant Number
26350701and 26242065.
References
1) Altschuler EL and Ramachandran VS. 2006. Can you do
this? Extremely difficult interbodypart coordination tasks
and implications for central limitations on control of coordi-
nation. Perception 35: 281-283.
2) Carson RG and Kelso JA. 2004. Governing coordination: be-
havioural principles and neural correlates. Exp Brain Res 154:
267-274.
3) Swinnen SP and Carson RG. 2002. The control and learning
of patterns of interlimb coordination: past and present issues
in normal and disordered control. Acta Psychol (Amst) 110:
129-137.
4) Kelso JA, Southard DL and Goodman D. 1979. On the co-
ordination of two-handed movements. J Exp Psychol Hum
Percept Perform 5: 229-238.
5) Kelso JA, Southard DL and Goodman D. 1979. On the nature
of human interlimb coordination. Science 203: 1029-1031.
6) Heed T and Roder B. 2014. Motor coordination uses exter-
nal spatial coordinates independent of developmental vision.
Cognition 132: 1-15.
7) Sakurada T, Ito K and Gomi H. 2016. Bimanual motor co-
ordination controlled by cooperative interactions in intrinsic
and extrinsic coordinates. Eur J Neurosci 43: 120-130.
8) Weigelt C and Cardoso de Oliveira S. 2003. Visuomotor trans-
formations affect bimanual coupling. Exp Brain Res 148: 439-
450.
9) Swinnen SP, Dounskaia N and Duysens J. 2002. Patterns of
bimanual interference reveal movement encoding within a ra-
dial egocentric reference frame. J Cogn Neurosci 14: 463-471.
10) Muraoka T, Ishida Y, Obu T, Crawshaw L and Kanosue K.
2013. Ipsilateral wrist-ankle movements in the sagittal plane
encoded in extrinsic reference frame. Neurosci Res 75: 289-294.
11) Mechsner F and Knoblich G. 2004. Do muscles matter for
coordinated action? J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 30:
490-503.
12) Buchanan JJ. 2004. Learning a single limb multijoint coordi-
nation pattern: the impact of a mechanical constraint on the
coordination dynamics of learning and transfer. Exp Brain
Res 156: 39-54.
13) Vangheluwe S, Puttemans V, Wenderoth N, Van Baelen M
and Swinnen SP. 2004. Inter- and intralimb transfer of a
bimanual task: generalisability of limb dissociation. Behav
Brain Res 154: 535-547.
14) Snapp-Childs W, Wilson AD and Bingham GP. 2015. Trans-
fer of learning between unimanual and bimanual rhythmic
movement coordination: transfer is a function of the task dy-
namic. Exp Brain Res 233: 2225-2238.
15) Temprado JJ and Swinnen SP. 2005. Dynamics of learning
and transfer of muscular and spatial relative phase in biman-
ual coordination: evidence for abstract directional codes. Exp
Brain Res 160: 180-188.
16) Maslovat D, Lam MY, Brunke KM, Chua R and Franks IM.
2009. Anchoring in a novel bimanual coordination pattern.
Hum Mov Sci 28: 28-47.
17) de Boer BJ, Peper CL and Beek PJ. 2013. Learning a new
355
bimanual coordination pattern: interlimb interactions, atten-
tional focus, and transfer. J Mot Behav 45: 65-77.
18) Puttemans V, Vangheluwe S, Wenderoth N and Swinnen S.
2004. Bimanual directional interference: the effect of normal
versus augmented visual information feedback on learning
and transfer. Motor Control 8: 33-50.
19) Ren J, Huang S, Zhang J, Zhu Q, Wilson AD, Snapp-Childs
W and Bingham GP. 2015. The 50s cliff: a decline in percep-
tuo-motor learning, not a deficit in visual motion perception.
PLoS One 10: e0121708.
20) Solesio-Jofre E, Serbruyns L, Woolley DG, Mantini D, Beets
IA and Swinnen SP. 2014. Aging effects on the resting state
motor network and interlimb coordination. Hum Brain Mapp
35: 3945-3961.
21) Kiyama S, Kunimi M, Iidaka T and Nakai T. 2014. Distant
functional connectivity for bimanual finger coordination de-
clines with aging: an fMRI and SEM exploration. Front Hum
Neurosci 8: 251.
22) Fujiyama H, Hinder MR, Schmidt MW, Garry MI and Sum-
mers JJ. 2012. Age-related differences in corticospinal excit-
ability and inhibition during coordination of upper and lower
limbs. Neurobiol Aging 33: 1484.e1-1484.e14.
23) Heuninckx S, Wenderoth N, Debaere F, Peeters R and Swin-
nen SP. 2005. Neural basis of aging: the penetration of cogni-
tion into action control. J Neurosci 25: 6787-6796.
24) Heuninckx S, Debaere F, Wenderoth N, Verschueren S and
Swinnen SP. 2004. Ipsilateral coordination deficits and cen-
tral processing requirements associated with coordination as
a function of aging. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 59:
P225-P232.
25) Wyke M. 1971. The effects of brain lesions on the learning per-
formance of a bimanual co-ordination task. Cortex 7: 59-72.
26) Leonard G, Milner B and Jones L. 1988. Performance on uni-
manual and bimanual tapping tasks by patients with lesions
of the frontal or temporal lobe. Neuropsychologia 26: 79-91.
27) Johnson KA, Cunnington R, Bradshaw JL, Phillips JG, Ian-
sek R and Rogers MA. 1998. Bimanual co-ordination in Par-
kinson’s disease. Brain 121 (Pt 4): 743-753.
28) Serrien DJ and Wiesendanger M. 2000. Temporal control of a
bimanual task in patients with cerebellar dysfunction. Neuro-
psychologia 38: 558-565.
29) Wu T, Wang L, Hallett M, Li K and Chan P. 2010. Neural
correlates of bimanual anti-phase and in-phase movements in
Parkinson’s disease. Brain 133: 2394-2409.
30) Kantak S, McGrath R and Zahedi N. 2016. Goal conceptual-
ization and symmetry of arm movements affect bimanual coor-
dination in individuals after stroke. Neurosci Lett 626: 86-93.
31) Caeyenberghs K, Wenderoth N, Smits-Engelsman BC, Su-
naert S and Swinnen SP. 2009. Neural correlates of motor
dysfunction in children with traumatic brain injury: explora-
tion of compensatory recruitment patterns. Brain 132 (Pt 3):
684-694.
32) Hazeltine E, Weinstein A and Ivry RB. 2008. Parallel Response
Selection after Callosotomy. J Cogn Neurosci 20: 526-540.
33) Debaere F, Van Assche D, Kiekens C, Verschueren SMP and
Swinnen SP. 2001. Coordination of upper and lower limb
segments: deficits on the ipsilesional side after unilateral
stroke. Exp Brain Res 141: 519-529.
34) Kelso JA, DelColle JD and Schöner G. 1990. Action-perception
as a pattern formation process. In M. Jeannerod (Ed), Attention
and performance XIII. (Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ) pp 139-169.
356 JPFSM : Muraoka T, et al.
35) Haken H, Kelso JA and Bunz H. 1985. A theoretical model of
phase transitions in human hand movements. Biol Cybern 51:
347-356.
36) Schöner G, Haken H and Kelso JA. 1986. A stochastic theory
of phase transitions in human hand movement. Biol Cybern
53: 247-257.
37) Kelso JA. 1984. Phase transitions and critical behavior in hu-
man bimanual coordination. Am J Physiol 246: R1000-R1004.
38) Nomura Y, Jono Y, Tani K, Chujo Y and Hiraoka K. 2016.
Corticospinal modulations during bimanual movement with
different relative phases. Front Hum Neurosci 10: 95.
39) Kelso JA, Scholz JP and Schoner G. 1986. Nonequilibrium
phase-transitions in coordinated biological motion-critical
fluctuations. Phys Lett A 118: 279-284.
40) Scholz JP, Kelso JA and Schöner G. 1987. Non-equilibrium
phase transitions in coordinated biological motion: critical
slowing down and switching time. Phys Lett A 123: 390-394.
41) Swinnen SP. 2002. Intermanual coordination: from behav-
ioural principles to neural-network interactions. Nat Rev Neu-
rosci 3: 348-359.
42) Swinnen SP and Wenderoth N. 2004. Two hands, one brain:
cognitive neuroscience of bimanual skill. Trends Cogn Sci 8:
18-25.
43) Oliveira FT and Ivry RB. 2008. The representation of action:
insights from bimanual coordination. Curr Dir Psychol Sci
17: 130-135.
44) Mechsner F, Kerzel D, Knoblich G and Prinz W. 2001. Per-
ceptual basis of bimanual coordination. Nature 414: 69-73.
45) Mechsner F. 2004. Response to commentaries: actions as per-
ceptual-conceptual “Gestalts”. J Motor Behav 36: 408-417.
46) Mechsner F. 2004. A psychological approach to human vol-
untary movements. J Motor Behav 36: 355-370.
47) Muller K, Kleiser R, Mechsner F and Seitz RJ. 2009. Percep-
tual influence on bimanual coordination: an fMRI study. Eur
J Neurosci 30: 116-124.
48) Amazeen PG, Amazeen EL and Turvey MT. 2004. Symmetry
and the devil. J Motor Behav 36: 371-372.
49) Beek PJ and Peper CE. 2004. Perceptible goals matter, but
let’s not overdo it! J Motor Behav 36: 373-375.
50) Carson RG. 2004. A simple and unified approach to human
voluntary Movements. J Motor Behav 36: 378-380.
51) de Oliveira SC. 2004. Control is good; prediction is better? J
Motor Behav 36: 375-378.
52) Franz EA. 2004. On the perceptual control of bimanual per-
formance. J Motor Behav 36: 380-381.
53) Heuer H. 2004. Postintentional neglect. J Motor Behav 36:
381-384.
54) Hoffmann J and Lenhard A. 2004. Psychology Has to Deal
with Efferences Too. J Motor Behav 36: 384-385.
55) Jirsa VK. 2004. Perceptual-cognitive control as a special case
in equivalent multisensory-sensorimotor interactions. J Mo-
tor Behav 36: 385-386.
56) Obhi SS. 2004. An account of human voluntary movement
must be holistic. J Motor Behav 36: 387-390.
57) Rosenbaum DA and Dawson AM. 2004. The motor system
computes well but remembers poorly. J Motor Behav 36:
390-392.
58) Summers J. 2004. The cognitivist’s revenge? J Motor Behav
36: 392-394.
59) Swinnen SP, Li Y, Wenderoth N, Dounskaia N, Byblow W,
Stinear C and Wagemans J. 2004. Perception-action coupling
during bimanual coordination: the role of visual perception
in the coalition of constraints that govern bimanual action. J
Motor Behav 36: 394-398.
60) Temprado JJ and Salesse R. 2004. Interlimb coordination:
real constraints and false dichotomies. J Motor Behav 36:
398-400.
61) Walter CB and Gravenhorst RM. 2004. Placing the perceptual-
cognitive approach in perspective. J Motor Behav 36: 400-407.
62) Obhi SS and Goodale MA. 2005. Bimanual interference in
rapid discrete movements is task specific and occurs at mul-
tiple levels of processing. J Neurophysiol 94: 1861-1868.
63) Obhi SS and Haggard P. 2004. The relative effects of external
spatial and motoric factors on the bimanual coordination of
discrete movements. Exp Brain Res 154: 399-402.
64) Riek S, Carson RG and Byblow WD. 1992. Spatial and mus-
cular dependencies in bimanual coordination. J Hum Mov
Stud 23: 251-265.
65) Temprado JJ, Swinnen SP, Carson RG, Tourment A and Lau-
rent M. 2003. Interaction of directional, neuromuscular and
egocentric constraints on the stability of preferred bimanual
coordination patterns. Hum Mov Sci 22: 339-363.
66) Li Y, Levin O, Carson RG and Swinnen SP. 2004. Bimanual
coordination: constraints imposed by the relative timing of
homologous muscle activation. Exp Brain Res 156: 27-38.
67) Temprado JJ, Salesse R and Summers JJ. 2007. Neuromuscu-
lar and spatial constraints on bimanual hand-held pendulum
oscillations: dissociation or combination? Hum Mov Sci 26:
235-246.
68) Kelso JA, Buchanan JJ and Wallace SA. 1991. Order param-
eters for the neural organization of single, multijoint limb
movement patterns. Exp Brain Res 85: 432-444.
69) Buchanan JJ and Kelso JA. 1993. Posturally induced transi-
tions in rhythmic multijoint limb movements. Exp Brain Res
94: 131-142.
70) Salesse R, Temprado JJ and Swinnen SP. 2005. Interaction
of neuromuscular, spatial and visual constraints on hand-foot
coordination dynamics. Hum Mov Sci 24: 66-80.
71) Baldissera F, Cavallari P and Civaschi P. 1982. Preferential
coupling between voluntary movements of ipsilateral limbs.
Neurosci Lett 34: 95-100.
72) Carson RG, Goodman D, Kelso JAS and Elliott D. 1995.
Phase-transitions and critical fluctuations in rhythmic coordi-
nation of ipsilateral hand and foot. J Motor Behav 27: 211-224.
73) Meesen RL, Wenderoth N, Temprado JJ, Summers JJ and
Swinnen SP. 2006. The coalition of constraints during coor-
dination of the ipsilateral and heterolateral limbs. Exp Brain
Res 174: 367-375.
74) Muraoka T, Watanabe Y and Kanosue K. 2015. Intra- and in-
ter-person coordinated movements of fingers and toes. Sports
Performance, eds Kanosue K, Nagami T, and Tsuchiya J
(Springer Japan), pp 37-48.
75) Roerdink M, Ophoff ED, Lieke EPC and Beek PJ. 2008.
Visual and musculoskeletal underpinnings of anchoring in
rhythmic visuo-motor tracking. Exp Brain Res 184: 143-156.
76) Maslovat D, Chua R, Lee TD and Franks IM. 2006. Anchor-
ing strategies for learning a bimanual coordination pattern. J
Mot Behav 38: 101-117.
77) Jirsa VK, Fink P, Foo P and Kelso JA. 2000. Parametric stabi-
lization of biological coordination: a theoretical model. J Biol
Phys 26: 85-112.
78) Byblow WD, Carson RG and Goodman D. 1994. Expressions
 JPFSM : Interlimb coordination from a psychological perspective
of asymmetries and anchoring in bimanual coordination. Hum
Mov Sci 13: 3-28.
79) Carson RG. 1996. Neuromuscular-skeletal constraints upon
the dynamics of perception-action coupling. Exp Brain Res
110: 99-110.
80) Carson RG and Riek S. 1998. The influence of joint position
on the dynamics of perception-action coupling. Exp Brain
Res 121: 103-114.
81) Kelso JA, Fink PW, DeLaplain CR and Carson RG. 2001.
Haptic information stabilizes and destabilizes coordination
dynamics. Proc Biol Sci 268: 1207-1213.
82) Lagarde J and Kelso JA. 2006. Binding of movement, sound
and touch: multimodal coordination dynamics. Exp Brain
Res 173: 673-688.
83) Zelic G, Mottet D and Lagarde J. 2016. Perceptuo-motor
compatibility governs multisensory integration in bimanual
coordination dynamics. Exp Brain Res 234: 463-474.
84) Spencer RM and Ivry RB. 2007. The temporal representa-
tion of in-phase and anti-phase movements. Hum Mov Sci 26:
226-234.
85) Fink PW, Foo P, Jirsa VK and Kelso JA. 2000. Local and
global stabilization of coordination by sensory information.
Exp Brain Res 134: 9-20.
86) Schaal S, Sternad D, Osu R and Kawato M. 2004. Rhythmic
arm movement is not discrete. Nat Neurosci 7: 1136-1143.
87) Kennerley SW, Diedrichsen J, Hazeltine E, Semjen A and
Ivry RB. 2002. Callosotomy patients exhibit temporal uncou-
pling during continuous bimanual movements. Nat Neurosci
5: 376-381.
88) Spencer RM, Zelaznik HN, Diedrichsen J and Ivry RB. 2003.
Disrupted timing of discontinuous but not continuous move-
ments by cerebellar lesions. Science 300: 1437-1439.
89) Ivry RB, Spencer RM, Zelaznik HN and Diedrichsen J. 2002.
The cerebellum and event timing. Ann NY Acad Sci 978: 302-
317.
90) Riek S and Woolley D. 2005. Hierarchical organisation of
neuro-anatomical constraints in interlimb coordination. Hum
Mov Sci 24: 798-814.
91) Hager-Ross C and Schieber MH. 2000. Quantifying the inde-
pendence of human finger movements: comparisons of dig-
its, hands, and movement frequencies. J Neurosci 20: 8542-
8550.
92) Aoki T, Francis PR and Kinoshita H. 2003. Differences in the
abilities of individual fingers during the performance of fast,
repetitive tapping movements. Exp Brain Res 152: 270-280.
93) Aoki T, Tsuda H, Takasawa M, Osaki Y, Oku N, Hatazawa J
and Kinoshita H. 2005. The effect of tapping finger and mode
differences on cortical and subcortical activities: a PET study.
Exp Brain Res 160: 375-383.
94) Brozzoli C, Gentile G and Ehrsson HH. 2012. That’s near my
hand! Parietal and premotor coding of hand-centered space
contributes to localization and self-attribution of the hand. J
Neurosci 32: 14573-14582.
95) Buneo CA and Andersen RA. 2012. Integration of target and
hand position signals in the posterior parietal cortex: effects
of workspace and hand vision. J Neurophysiol 108: 187-199.
96) di Pellegrino G and Ladavas E. 2015. Peripersonal space in
the brain. Neuropsychologia 66: 126-133.
97) Piserchia V, Breveglieri R, Hadjidimitrakis K, Bertozzi F,
Galletti C and Fattori P. 2016. Mixed body/hand reference
frame for reaching in 3D space in macaque parietal Aarea
357
PEc. Cereb Cortex [Epub ahead of print].
98) Kirsch W and Kunde W. 2012. Impact of hand orientation on
bimanual finger coordination in an eight-finger tapping task.
Hum Mov Sci 31: 1399-1408.
99) Borroni P, Cerri G and Baldissera F. 2004. Excitability
changes in resting forearm muscles during voluntary foot
movements depend on hand position: a neural substrate for
hand-foot isodirectional coupling. Brain Res 1022: 117-125.
100) Baldissera F, Borroni P, Cavallari P and Cerri G. 2002.
Excitability changes in human corticospinal projections to
forearm muscles during voluntary movement of ipsilateral
foot. J Physiol 539: 903-911.
101) Byblow WD, Coxon JP, Stinear CM, Fleming MK, Williams
G, Muller JF and Ziemann U. 2007. Functional connectiv-
ity between secondary and primary motor areas underlying
hand-foot coordination. J Neurophysiol 98: 414-422.
102) McIntyre-Robinson AJ and Byblow WD. 2013. A neuro-
physiological basis for the coordination between hand and
foot movement. J Neurophysiol 110: 1039-1046.
103) Carson RG, Riek S and Bawa P. 1999. Electromyograph-
ic activity, H-reflex modulation and corticospinal input to
forearm motoneurones during active and passive rhythmic
movements. Hum Mov Sci 18: 307-343.
104) Tazoe T and Komiyama T. 2014. Interlimb neural interac-
tions in the corticospinal pathways. J Phys Fitness Sports
Med 3: 181-190.
105) Kato K, Muraoka T, Mizuguchi N, Nakagawa K, Nakata H
and Kanosue K. 2016. Muscle relaxation of the foot reduces
corticospinal excitability of hand muscles and enhances in-
tracortical inhibition. Front Hum Neurosci 10: 218.
106) Zijdewind I, Butler JE, Gandevia SC and Taylor JL. 2006.
The origin of activity in the biceps brachii muscle during
voluntary contractions of the contralateral elbow flexor
muscles. Exp Brain Res 175: 526-535.
107) Uehara K, Morishita T and Funase K. 2011. Excitability
changes in the ipsilateral primary motor cortex during rhyth-
mic contraction of finger muscles. Neurosci Lett 488: 22-25.
108) Muraoka T, Sakamoto M, Mizuguchi N, Nakagawa K and
Kanosue K. 2015. Corticospinal excitability modulation in
resting digit muscles during cyclical movement of the digits
of the ipsilateral limb. Front Hum Neurosci 9: 607.
109) Arya KN and Pandian S. 2014. Interlimb neural coupling:
implications for poststroke hemiparesis. Ann Phys Rehab
Med 57: 696-713.
110) Chiou SY, Wang RY, Liao KK, Wu YT, Lu CF and Yang YR.
2013. Co-activation of primary motor cortex ipsilateral to
muscles contracting in a unilateral motor task. Clin Neuro-
physiol 124: 1353-1363.
111) Stinear CM, Walker KS and Byblow WD. 2001. Symmetric
facilitation between motor cortices during contraction of ip-
silateral hand muscles. Exp Brain Res 139: 101-105.
112) Bunday KL and Perez MA. 2012. Impaired crossed facilita-
tion of the corticospinal pathway after cervical spinal cord
injury. J Neurophysiol 107: 2901-2911.
113) Baldissera F, Cavallari P and Leocani L. 1998. Cyclic modu-
lation of the H-reflex in a wrist flexor during rhythmic flex-
ion-extension movements of the ipsilateral foot. Exp Brain
Res 118: 427-430.
114) Cerri G, Borroni P and Baldissera F. 2003. Cyclic h-reflex
modulation in resting forearm related to contractions of foot
movers, not to foot movement. J Neurophysiol 90: 81-88.
358 JPFSM : Muraoka T, et al.
115) Carson RG, Riek S, Mackey DC, Meichenbaum DP, Willms
K, Forner M and Byblow WD. 2004. Excitability changes in
human forearm corticospinal projections and spinal reflex
pathways during rhythmic voluntary movement of the op-
posite limb. J Physiol 560: 929-940.
116) Kelso JA. 1995. Dynamic patterns: the self-organization of
brain and behavior (MIT Press, Cambridge).
117) Swinnen SP, Dounskaia N, Walter CB and Serrien DJ. 1997.
Preferred and induced coordination modes during the acqui-
sition of bimanual movements with a 2:1 frequency ratio. J
Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 23: 1087-1110.
118) Boyles J, Panzer S and Shea CH. 2012. Increasingly com-
plex bimanual multi-frequency coordination patterns are
equally easy to perform with on-line relative velocity feed-
back. Exp Brain Res 216: 515-525.
119) Pauwels L, Vancleef K, Swinnen SP and Beets IA. 2015.
Challenge to promote change: both young and older adults
benefit from contextual interference. Front Aging Neurosci 7:
157.
120) Kennedy DM, Wang C, Panzer S and Shea CH. 2016. Con-
tinuous scanning trials: transitioning through the attractor
landscape. Neurosci Lett 610: 66-72.
121) Kovacs AJ and Shea CH. 2011. The learning of 90 degrees
continuous relative phase with and without Lissajous feed-
back: external and internally generated bimanual coordina-
tion. Acta Psychol (Amst) 136: 311-320.
122) Kovacs AJ, Buchanan JJ and Shea CH. 2009. Bimanual 1:1
with 90 degrees continuous relative phase: difficult or easy!
Exp Brain Res 193: 129-136.
123) Remy F, Wenderoth N, Lipkens K and Swinnen SP. 2008.
Acquisition of a new bimanual coordination pattern modu-
lates the cerebral activations elicited by an intrinsic pattern:
an fMRI study. Cortex 44: 482-493.
124) Debaere F, Wenderoth N, Sunaert S, Van Hecke P and Swin-
nen SP. 2003. Internal vs external generation of movements:
differential neural pathways involved in bimanual coordi-
nation performed in the presence or absence of augmented
visual feedback. Neuroimage 19: 764-776.
125) Swinnen SP, Verschueren SMP, Bogaerts H, Dounskaia N,
Lee TD, Stelmach GE and Serrien DJ. 1998. Age-related
deficits in motor learning and differences in feedback pro-
cessing during the production of a bimanual coordination
pattern. Cogn Neuropsychol 15: 439-466.
126) Swinnen SP, Lee TD, Verschueren S, Serrien DJ and Bo-
gaerds H. 1997. Interlimb coordination: Learning and trans-
fer under different feedback conditions. Hum Mov Sci 16:
749-785.
127) Salter JE, Wishart LR, Lee TD and Simon D. 2004. Per-
ceptual and motor contributions to bimanual coordination.
Neurosci Lett 363: 102-107.
128) Salesse R and Temprado JJ. 2005. The effect of visuo-motor
transformations on hand-foot coordination: evidence in favor
of the incongruency hypothesis. Acta Psychol (Amst) 119:
143-157.
129) Kunde W and Weigelt M. 2005. Goal congruency in bi-
manual object manipulation. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept
Perform 31: 145-156.
130) Kunde W, Krauss H and Weigelt M. 2009. Goal congruency
without stimulus congruency in bimanual coordination.
Psychol Res 73: 34-42.
131) Franz EA and McCormick R. 2010. Conceptual unifying
constraints override sensorimotor interference during antici-
patory control of bimanual actions. Exp Brain Res 205: 273-
282.
132) Wulf G, Shea C and Lewthwaite R. 2010. Motor skill learn-
ing and performance: a review of influential factors. Med
Educ 44: 75-84.
133) van Vliet PM and Wulf G. 2006. Extrinsic feedback for mo-
tor learning after stroke: what is the evidence? Disabil Re-
habil 28: 831-840.
134) Spencer RM, Ivry RB, Cattaert D and Semjen A. 2005. Bi-
manual coordination during rhythmic movements in the ab-
sence of somatosensory feedback. J Neurophysiol 94: 2901-
2910.
135) Dahm SF and Rieger M. 2016. Cognitive constraints on mo-
tor imagery. Psychol Res 80: 235-247.
136) Dahm SF and Rieger M. 2016. Is there symmetry in motor
imagery? Exploring different versions of the mental chro-
nometry paradigm. Atten Percept Psychophys 78: 1794-1805.
137) Nakagawa K, Muraoka T and Kanosue K. 2013. Factors that
determine directional constraint in ipsilateral hand-foot co-
ordinated movements. Physiol Rep 1: e00108.
138) Nakagawa K, Muraoka T and Kanosue K. 2015. Potential
explanation of limb combination performance differences
for two-limb coordination tasks. Physiol Rep 3: e12301.
139) Boisgontier MP, Van Halewyck F, Corporaal SH, Willacker
L, Van Den Bergh V, Beets IA, Levin O and Swinnen SP.
2014. Vision of the active limb impairs bimanual motor
tracking in young and older adults. Front Aging Neurosci 6:
320.
140) Stinear JW and Byblow WD. 2001. Phase transitions and
postural deviations during bimanual kinesthetic tracking.
Exp Brain Res 137: 467-477.
141) Oullier O, Jantzen KJ, Steinberg FL and Kelso JA. 2005.
Neural substrates of real and imagined sensorimotor coordi-
nation. Cereb Cortex 15: 975-985.
142) Hajnal A, Richardson MJ, Harrison SJ and Schmidt RC.
2009. Location but not amount of stimulus occlusion influ-
ences the stability of visuo-motor coordination. Exp Brain
Res 199: 89-93.
143) Fine JM, Gibbons CT and Amazeen EL. 2013. Congruency
effects in interpersonal coordination. J Exp Psychol Hum
Percept Perform 39: 1541-1556.
144) Coey C, Varlet M, Schmidt RC and Richardson MJ. 2011.
Effects of movement stability and congruency on the emer-
gence of spontaneous interpersonal coordination. Exp Brain
Res 211: 483-493.
145) Black DP, Riley MA and McCord CK. 2007. Synergies in
intra- and interpersonal interlimb rhythmic coordination.
Motor Control 11: 348-373.
146) Kilner JM, Paulignan Y and Blakemore SJ. 2003. An inter-
ference effect of observed biological movement on action.
Curr Biol 13: 522-525.
147) Buekers MJ, Bogaerts HP, Swinnen SP and Helsen WF.
2000. The synchronization of human arm movements to ex-
ternal events. Neurosci Lett 290: 181-184.
148) Schmidt RC, Carello C and Turvey MT. 1990. Phase transi-
tions and critical fluctuations in the visual coordination of
rhythmic movements between people. J Exp Psychol Hum
Percept Perform 16: 227-247.
149) Amazeen PG, Schmidt RC and Turvey MT. 1995. Frequen-
cy detuning of the phase entrainment dynamics of visually
 JPFSM : Interlimb coordination from a psychological perspective
coupled rhythmic movements. Biol Cybern 72: 511-518.
150) Wilson AD, Snapp-Childs W and Bingham GP. 2010. Per-
ceptual learning immediately yields new stable motor co-
ordination. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 36: 1508-
1514.
151) Wilson AD, Collins DR and Bingham GP. 2005. Human
movement coordination implicates relative direction as the
information for relative phase. Exp Brain Res 165: 351-361.
152) Byblow WD, Chua R and Goodman D. 1995. Asymmetries
in coupling dynamics of perception and action. J Motor Be-
hav 27: 123-137.
359
153) Zaal FTJM, Bingham GP and Schmidt RC. 2000. Visual
perception of mean relative phase and phase variability. J
Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 26: 1209-1220.
154) Bingham GP, Zaal FTJM, Shull JA and Collins DR. 2001.
The effect of frequency on the visual perception of relative
phase and phase variability of two oscillating objects. Exp
Brain Res 136: 543-552.
155) Wilson AD, Bingham GP and Craig JC. 2003. Propriocep-
tive perception of phase variability. J Exp Psychol Hum Per-
cept Perform 29: 1179-1190.