Abstract
Picking up an object is a seemingly simple and isolated task; however, research has demonstrated that adults plan a reach-to-grasp movement on the basis of forthcoming actions. For example a greater deceleration period is seen in an initial reach movement which precedes a place movement compared to a throw movement. This task-specific or second-order motor planning is also seen in infants and toddlers; however, the developmental progression is unclear. Reach-to-grasp movements of 48 children, split into four age groups (4–5, 6–7, 8–9 and 10–11 years) were recorded. These movements preceded a tight place, a loose place or a throw action. All the children showed some degree of tailoring kinematics to the onward action. In the 4–5 year-old group, this was demonstrated by a longer movement duration in the place actions compared to the throw action. In the older children the proportion of time spent decelerating increased as the precision requirements of the task increased. These results demonstrate that all children are able to use second-order planning to integrate onward task demands into their movements. The capacity for this increases with age but is not fully mature at 11 years. These developmental effects may be explained by the relative weighting of costs involved in tailoring a reach action compared to the benefits of producing a more efficient onward action.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Armbruster C, Spijkers W (2006) Movement planning in prehension: do intended actions influence the initial reach and grasp movement? Mot Control 10:311–329
Atkeson CG, Hollerbach JM (1985) Kinematic features of unrestrained vertical arm movements. J Neurosci 5:2318–2330
Attili M, Oksala R, Agmo A (2010) Sexual incentive motivation in male rats requires both androgens and estrogens. Horm Behav 58:341–351
Bootsma RJ, Marteniuk RG, MacKenzie CL, Zaal FTJM (1994) The speed-accuracy trade off in manual prehension: effects of movement amplitude, object size and object width on kinematic characteristics. Exp Brain Res 98:535–541
Boyer TW, Longo MR, Bertenthal BI (2012) Is automatic imitation a specialized form of stimulus response compatibility? Dissociating imitative and spatial compatibilities. Acta Psychol 139:440–448
Chen Y-P, Keen R, Rosander K, von Hofsten C (2010) Movement planning reflects skill level and age changes in toddlers. Child Dev 81:1846–1858
Claxton LJ, Keen R, McCarty ME (2003) Evidence of motor planning in infant reaching behavior. Psychol Sci 14:354–356
Coats RO, Wann JP (2011) The reliance on visual feedback control by older adults is highlighted in tasks requiring precise endpoint placement and precision grip. Exp Brain Res 214:139–150
Fischman MG (1997) End-state-comfort in object manipulation (abstract). Res Q Exerc Sport 68(Suppl):A-60
Flash T, Hollerbach JM (1985) The coordination of arm movements: an experimentally confirmed mathematical model. J Neurosci 5:1688–1703
Henderson S, Sugden D, Barnett A (2007) Movement assessment battery for children: Second edition. Pearson, Oxford
Howell DC (2002) Statistical methods for psychology, 5th edn. Duxbury, California
Johnson-Frey SH, McCarty ME, Keen R (2004) Reaching beyond spatial perception: effects of intended future actions on visually guided prehension. Visual Cognition 11:371–399
Jovanovic B, Schwarzer G (2011) Learning to grasp efficiently: the development of motor planning and the role of observational learning. Vision Res 51(8):945–954
Konczak J, Dichgans J (1997) The development towards sterotypic arm kinematics during reaching in the first 3 years of life. Exp Brain Res 117:346–354
Kuhtz-Buschbeck JP, Stolze H, Johnk K, Boczek-Funcke A, Illert M (1998) Development of prehension movement in children: a kinematic study. Exp Brain Res 122:424–432
Logan SW, Fischman MG (2011) The relationship between end-state-comfort effect and memory performance in serial and free recall. Acta Psychol 137:292–299
Luciana M, Nelson CA (2002) Assessment of neuropsychological function in children using the Cambridge neuropsychological testing automated battery (CANTAB): performance in 4–12 year-olds. Dev Neuropsychol 22:595–623
Luciana M, Conklin HM, Hooper CJ, Yarger RS (2005) The development of nonverbal working memory and executive control processes in adolescents. Child Dev 73:697–712
Marteniuk RG, MacKenzie CL, Jeannerod M, Athenes S, Dugas C (1987) Constraints on human arm movement trajectories. Can J Psychol 41:365–678
McCarty ME, Clifton RK, Collard RR (1999) Problem solving in infancy: the emergence of an action plan. Dev Psychol 35:1091–1101
McKenna B, Dickinson DL, Orff H, Drummond SPA (2007) The effects of one-night of sleep deprivation on known-risk and ambiguous-risk decisions. J Sleep Res 16:245–252
Rosenbaum DA, Marchak F, Barnes HJ, Vaughan J, Slotta JD, Jorgensen MJ (1990) Constraints for action selection: overhand versus underhand grip. In: Jeannerod M (ed) Attention and performance XIII. Lawrence Erlbaum Asscoaites, Hillsdale, pp 321–342
Rosenbaum DA, Vaughan J, Jorgensen MJ, Barnes HJ, Stewart E (1993) Plans for object manipulation. In: Meyer DE, Kornblum S (eds) Attention and performance XIV—A silver jubilee: synergies in experimental psychology, artificial intelligence and cognitive neuroscience. MIT Press, Bradford Books, Cambridge, pp 803–820
Rosenbaum DA, Cohen RG, Meulenbroak RG, Vaughan J (2006) Plans for grasping objects. In: Latash M, Lestienne F (eds) Motor control and learning over the lifespan. Springer, New York, pp 9–25
Rosenbaum DA, Chapman KM, Weigelt M, Weiss DJ, van der Wel R (2012) Cognition, action and object manipulation. Psychol Bull 138:924–946
Schmidt RA (1975) A schema theory of motor control. Psychol Rev 82:225–260
Shallice T (1982) Specific impairments in planning. Philos Trans Royal Soc Lond B 198:199–209
van Swieten LM, van Bergen E, Williams JHG, Wilson AD, Plumb MS, Kent SW, Mon-Williams M (2010) A test of motor (not executive) planning in developmental coordination disorder and autism. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 36:493–499
Weigelt M, Rosenbaum DA, Huelshorst S, Schack T (2009) Moving and memorising: motor planning modulates the recency effect in serial and free recall. Acta Psychol 132:68–79
Weir P (1994) Object property and task effects on prehension. In: Bennett KMB, Castiello U (eds) Insights into the reach to grasp movement. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, pp 129–150
Wilmut K, Byrne M, Barnett AL (2013) Reaching to throw compared to reaching to place: a comparison across individuals with and without developmental coordination disorder. Res Dev Disabil 34:174–182
Wolpert DM, Kawato M (1998) Multiple paired forward and inverse models for motor control. Neural Networks 11:1317–1329
Acknowledgments
This study was funded by an ESRC grant awarded to Kate Wilmut (RES-061-25-0472). We would like to thank all of the participants who took part in this study, Ian Wilmut who made the equipment and Prof. John Wann who kindly lent the VICON system.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wilmut, K., Byrne, M. & Barnett, A.L. To throw or to place: does onward intention affect how a child reaches for an object?. Exp Brain Res 226, 421–429 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-013-3453-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-013-3453-0