Janine DeBlasi

September 2015
Sophy Yu
Summary The Effect of Handedness, of Responding Hand, and of Response Force on the
Contralateral Dominance of the Readiness Potential: Kutas, M., Donchin, E.
This paper written by Marta Kutas and Dr. Donchin has the prime purpose of determining
whether pre-response negativity is a manifestation of a theoretical process. The experiment
sought to assess the association between pre-movement negativity and the preparation to evoke a
response. They would achieve this by seeing how the parameters of the response affect and/ or
determine its distribution, amplitude, and waveform. Its also important to note that for the
movement-related potentials, they were separated into four different components, including N1,
N2 (acceleration), P1 between N1 and N2, and P2 following N2.
For the overall method of the study, they focused on identifying movement-related
potentials with labels, as proposed by Vaughan in 1968. When considering handedness and
contralateral dominance of N1, eleven subjects movement related potentials were recorded by
them squeezing a dynamometer using their left or right hand and squeezing with three different
force levels. These squeezes were self-paced and voluntary, and comprised six to eight different
recording sessions. In addition, the force levels were set at 25, 50, and 75% of the participants
maximum for each hand. There was also a circle shown to the subjected when they had reached
the force level required.

Upon viewing the data from the procedures, they sought to determine the relationship
between the nominal force and the actual force that was produced. When analyzing the data,
Kutas and Donchin found three very important things in regards to the subjects motor responses:
the actual peak force functioned as continuously increasing in comparison to the nominal force
levels; the non-dominant hand having smaller mean peak values; and the greater response force
for the condition that didnt have feedback. They also confirmed what was previously stated and
from earlier studies, specifically that a slow negativity developed before movement N1, which
accelerated at N2 and was then followed by a wave that was positive going (P2). Overall, they
saw that right-handed subjects with a large pre-motion cortical negativity had the clearest degree
of collateral dominance. Finally, they found that responses force significantly impacted the P2
component of the motor potential.i

i Please note that this paper in its entirety is in reference to the following:Kutas, M., Donchin, E. (1977). The Effect of
Handedness, of Responding Hand, and of Response Force on the Contralateral Dominance of the Readiness Potential. Prog.
Clin. Neurophysiol., Vol. 1. 189-210.