Skip to main content
Log in

Factors affecting higher-order movement planning: a kinematic analysis of human prehension

  • Published:
Experimental Brain Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

Past studies of the kinematics of human prehension have shown that varying object size affects the maximum opening of the hand, while varying object distance affects the kinematic profile of the reaching limb. These data contributed to the formulation of a theory that the reaching and grasping components of human prehension reflect the output of two independent, though temporally coupled, motor programs (Jeannerod 1984). In the first experiment of the present study, subjects were required to reach out and grasp objects, with or without on-line, visual feedback. Object size and distance were covaried in a within-subjects design, and it was found that both grip formation and reach kinematics were affected by the manipulation of either variable. These data suggest that the control mechanisms underlying transport of the limb and grip formation are affected by similar task constraints. It was also observed that when visual feedback was unavailable after movement onset subjects showed an exaggerated opening of their hands, although grip size continued to be scaled for object size. The question remained as to whether the larger opening of the hand during no-feedback trials reflected the lack of opportunity to fine-tune the opening of the hand on-line, or the adoption of a strategy designed to increase tolerance for initial programming errors. To address this question, a second experiment was carried out in which we manipulated the predictability of visual feedback by presenting feedback and no-feedback trials in a random order. In contrast to the situation in which feedback and no-feedback trials were presented in separate blocks of trials (Exp. 1), in the randomly ordered series of trials presented in Exp. 2, subjects always behaved as if they were reaching without vision, even on trials where visual feedback was continuously available. These findings suggest that subjects adopt different strategies on the basis of the predictability of visual feedback, although there is nothing to suggest that this takes place at a conscious, or voluntary, level. The results of both experiments are consistent with the notion of a hierarchically-organized motor control center, responsible for optimizing performance under a variety of conditions through the coordination of different effector systems and the anticipation of operating constraints.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Brinkman J, Kuypers HGJM (1973) Cerebral control of contralateral and ipsilateral arm, hand and finger movements in the split-brain rhesus monkey. Brain 96:653–674

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Denny-Brown D, Yanagisawa N, Kirk EJ (1975) The localization of hemispheric mechanisms of visually directed reaching and grasping. In: Zulch KJ, Creutzfeldt O, Galbraith GC, (eds) Cerebral localization. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Elliott D, Allard F (1985) The utilization of visual feedback information during rapid pointing movements. Q J Exp Psychol [A] 37A:407–425

    Google Scholar 

  • Faugier-Grimaud S, Frenois C, Stein DG (1978) Effects of posterior parietal lesions on visually guided behaviour in monkeys. Neuropsychologia, 16:151–168

    Google Scholar 

  • Faugier-Grimaud S, Frenois C, Peronnet F (1985) Effects of posterior parietal lesions on visually guided movements in monkeys: Exp Brain Res 59:125–138

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisk JD, Goodale MA (1990). The effect of instructions to subjects on the programming of visually directed reaching movements. J Mot Behav 21:5–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Gazzaniga MS, Bogen JE, Sperry RW (1967) Dyspraxia following division of the cerebral commissures. Arch Neurol 16:606–612

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodale MA (1988) Hemispheric differences in motor control. Behav Brain Res 30:203–214

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodale MA, Pelisson D, Prablanc C (1986) Large adjustments in visually guided reaching do not depend on vision of the hand or perception of target displacement. Nature 320:748–750

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Haaxma R, Kuypers HGJM (1975) Intrahemispheric cortical connexions and visual guidance of hand and finger movements in the rhesus monkey. Brain 98:239–260

    Google Scholar 

  • Haggard P, Wing AM (1990) Assessing and reporting the accuracy of position measurements made with optical tracking systems. J Mot Behav 22:315–321

    Google Scholar 

  • Jakobson LS, Archibald YM, Carey DP, Goodale MA (in press) A kinematic analysis of reaching and grasping movements in a patient recovering from optic ataxia. Neuropsychologia (in press)

  • Jeannerod M (1981) Intersegmental coordination during reaching at natural visual objects. In: Long J, Baddeley A (ed), Attention and performance IX. Hillsdale, Erlbaum pp 153–168

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeannerod M (1984) The timing of natural prehension movements. J Mot Behav 16:235–254

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jeannerod M (1986) The formation of finger grip during prehension: a cortically mediated visuomotor pattern. Behav Brain Res 19:99–116

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeannerod M (1988) The neural and behavioural organization of goal-directed movements. Clarendon Press Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeannerod M, Biguer B (1982) Visuomotor mechanisms in reaching within extrapersonal space. In: Ingle DJ, Goodale MA, Mansfield RJW (ed), Analysis of visual behavior. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA pp 387–409

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeannerod M, Michel F, Prablanc C (1984) The control of hand movements in a case of hemianaesthesia following a parietal lesion. Brain 107:899–920

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimura D (1986) Neuropsychological test procedures. DK Consultants, London, Ontario

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirk RE (1982) Experimental design: procedures for the behavioral sciences. Brooks/Cole, Belmont, California

    Google Scholar 

  • Klapp ST (1975) Feedback versus motor programming in the control of aimed movements. J Exp Psychol 104:147–153

    Google Scholar 

  • LaMotte RH, Acuna C (1978) Deficits in accuracy of reaching after removal of posterior parietal cortex in monkeys. Brain Research 139:309–326

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence DG, Hopkins DA (1972) Developmental aspects of pyramidal control in the rhesus monkey. Brain Research 40:117–118

    Google Scholar 

  • Marteniuk RG, MacKenzie CL, Jeannerod M, Athenes S, Dugas C (1987) Constraints on human arm movement trajectories. Canad Psychol 41:365–378

    Google Scholar 

  • Marteniuk RG, MacKenzie CL (1990) Invariance and variability in human prehension: Implications for theory development. In: Goodale MA (ed), Vision and action: the control of grasping. Ablex Norwood, NJ, pp 49–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Muir RB (1985) Small hand muscles in precision grip: a corticospinal prerogative? Exp Brain Res [Suppl] 10:155–174

    Google Scholar 

  • Muir RB, Lemon RN (1983) Corticospinal neurons with a special role in precision grip. Brain Res 261:312–316

    Google Scholar 

  • Passingham R, Perry H, Wilkinson F (1978) Failure to develop a precision grip in monkeys with unilateral neocortical lesions made in infancy. Brain Res 145:410–414

    Google Scholar 

  • Perenin M-T, Vighetto A (1983) Optic ataxia: a specific disorder in visuomotor coordination. In: Hein A, Jeannerod M, (ed), Spatially oriented behavior. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 305–326

    Google Scholar 

  • Perenin M-T, Vighetto A (1988) Optic ataxia: a specific disruption in visuomotor mechanisms. I. Different aspects of the deficit in reaching for objects. Brain 111:643–674

    Google Scholar 

  • Prablanc C, Echallier JF, Komilis E, Jeannerod M (1979) Optimal response of eye and hand motor systems in pointing at a visual target. I. Spatio-temporal characteristics of eye and hand movements and their relationships when varying the amount of visual information. Biol Cybern 35:113–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Trevarthen CB (1965) Functional interactions between the cerebral hemispheres in the monkey. In: Ettlinger EG (ed) Functions of the corpus callosum. Ciba Foundation, London, pp 24–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Volpe BT, Sidtis JJ, Holtzman JD, Wilson DH, Gazzaniga MS (1982) Cortical mechanisms involved in praxis: observations following partial and complete section of the corpus callosum in man. Neurology 32:645–650

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Hofsten C (1979) Development of visually directed reaching: the approach phase. J Hum Mov Stud 5:160–178

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallace SA, Weeks DL (1988) Temporal constraints in the control of prehensile movement. J Mot Behav 20:81–105

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wing AM, Turton A, Fraser C (1986) Grasp size and accuracy of approach in reaching. J Mot Behav 18:245–260

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zelaznik HN, Hawkins B, Kisselburgh L (1983) Rapid visual feedback processing in single-aiming movements. J Mot Behav 15:217–236

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jakobson, L.S., Goodale, M.A. Factors affecting higher-order movement planning: a kinematic analysis of human prehension. Exp Brain Res 86, 199–208 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00231054

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00231054

Key Words

Navigation