In everyday life, we frequently have to decide which hand to use for a certain action. It has been suggested that for this decision the brain calculates expected costs based on action values, such as expected biomechanical costs, expected success rate, handedness, and skillfulness. Although these conclusions were based on experiments in stationary subjects, we often act while the body is in motion. We investigated how hand choice is affected by passive body motion, which directly affects the biomechanical costs of the arm movement due to its inertia. With the use of a linear motion platform, 12 right-handed subjects were sinusoidally translated (0.625 and 0.5 Hz). At 8 possible motion phases, they had to reach, using either their left or right hand, to a target presented at 1 of 11 possible locations. We predicted hand choice by calculating the expected biomechanical costs under different assumptions about the future acceleration involved in these computations, being the forthcoming acceleration during the reach, the instantaneous acceleration at target onset, or zero acceleration as if the body were stationary. Although hand choice was generally biased to use of the dominant hand, it also modulated sinusoidally with the motion, with the amplitude of the bias depending on the motion’s peak acceleration. The phase of hand choice modulation was consistent with the cost model that took the instantaneous acceleration signal at target onset. This suggests that the brain relies on the bottom-up acceleration signals, and not on predictions about future accelerations, when deciding on hand choice during passive whole body motion. NEW & NOTEWORTHY Decisions of hand choice are a fundamental aspect of human behavior. Whereas these decisions are typically studied in stationary subjects, this study examines hand choice while subjects are in motion. We show that accelerations of the body, which differentially modulate the biomechanical costs of left and right hand movements, are also taken into account when deciding which hand to use for a reach, possibly based on bottom-up processing of the otolith signal.

Disparities between perceived and actual physical abilities have been shown in older adults and may lead to balance loss or falls. However, it is unclear whether one’s misjudgment is an inherent trait and thus consistent across different tasks, and whether this misjudgment is age-related. We measured the degree of misjudgment in young and older adults on four different stepping tasks; stepping over a raised bar, crossing a declining cord by stepping over it at a self-selected height, crossing a virtual river by stepping over it at a self-selected width, and making a recovery step after release from an inclined position. Before comparison, we carefully checked the validity of the different tasks to determine the misjudgment. No substantial differences were found in the amplitude of the misjudgment between the age groups, and the degree of misjudgment did not transfer across different stepping tasks. However, since only one task (i.e., stepping over a raised bar) met our criteria for validly assessing one’s misjudgment, it remains unclear whether the degree of misjudgment is task-specific or an inherent trait. These findings stress the importance of testing the construct validity of the task, prior to the examination of the misjudgment of stepping ability.

Background and aim: The reciprocal relation between falling and concern about falling is complex and not well understood. We aimed to determine whether concern about falling increases after a fall and whether concern about falling increases the odds of future falls in community-dwelling older adults without a recent fall history.Methods: We selected 118 community-dwelling older adults (mean age: 71.4 (SD: 5.3) years) without a self-reported history of falling, one year prior to baseline assessment, from the one-year VIBE cohort for analyses. On a monthly basis, we recorded concern about falling (using the Falls Efficacy Scale-International, FES-I), as well as the occurrence of falls (through questionnaires and telephone calls). We determined 1) whether falling predicts an increase in concern about falling and 2) whether a high concern about falling is predictive of falling. Standard linear (fixed-effects) regression and mixed effects regression analyses were performed over long-term, i.e. one year, and short-term, i.e. one-month, intervals, respectively and were adjusted for gender, age and physical activity (quantified as the average total walking duration per day). Analyses were performed separately for all reported falls and for injurious falls only.Results: High concern about falling at baseline did not predict falls over the course of one year, nor over the course of one month. Furthermore, falls in between baseline assessment and one year thereafter did not predict increased concern about falling from baseline to one year later, independent of whether all falls or only injurious falls were considered. However, falls, either all or injurious only, happening somewhere over the course of a one-month interval, significantly predicted small increases in concern about falling (1.49 FES-I points, 95% CI [0.74, 2.25], p<0.001 for all falls; 2.60 FES-I points, 95% CI [1.55, 3.64], p<0.001 for injurious falls) from the start to the end of that one-month interval.Conclusion: Older adults without a recent history of falling seem to be resilient against developing concern about falling after having fallen, resulting in a short-term temporary effect of falling on concern about falling. Furthermore, we found no evidence that a high concern about falling predicts future falls over a one-month or a one-year follow-up period, suggesting that concern is not a primary cause for falls in older adults without a recent history of falling.

To perform a cross-cultural adaptation of the mGES into Dutch and investigate its construct validity, internal consistency, test-retest reliability and floor and ceiling effects in a large cohort o...

Empathy describes the ability to understand another person’s feelings. Psychopathy is a disorder that is characterized by a lack of empathy. Therefore, empathy and psychopathy are interesting traits to investigate with respect to experiencing and observing pain. The present study aimed to investigate pain empathy and pain sensitivity by measuring event-related potentials (ERPs) extracted from the ongoing EEG in an interactive setup. Each participant fulfilled subsequently the role of ‘villain’ and ‘victim’. In addition, mode of control was modulated resulting in four different conditions; passive villain, active villain, active victim and passive victim. Response-, visual- and pain ERPs were compared between all four conditions. Furthermore, the role of psychopathic traits in these outcomes was investigated. Our findings suggested that people experience more conflict when hurting someone else than hurting themselves. Furthermore, our results indicated that self-controlled pain was experienced as more painful than uncontrolled pain. People that scored high on psychopathic traits seemed to process and attend to pain differently. According to the results of the current study, social context and personality traits seem to modulate pain processing and the empathic response to pain in self and others. The within-subject experimental design described here provides an excellent approach to further unravel the influence of personality traits on social cognition.