Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 86, Issue 1, pp 199–208 | Cite as

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

  • L. S. Jakobson
  • M. A. Goodale


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.

Key Words

Limb movements Visuomotor behaviour Prehension Visual Feedback Human 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Brinkman J, Kuypers HGJM (1973) Cerebral control of contralateral and ipsilateral arm, hand and finger movements in the split-brain rhesus monkey. Brain 96:653–674PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 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 YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Elliott D, Allard F (1985) The utilization of visual feedback information during rapid pointing movements. Q J Exp Psychol [A] 37A:407–425Google Scholar
  4. Faugier-Grimaud S, Frenois C, Stein DG (1978) Effects of posterior parietal lesions on visually guided behaviour in monkeys. Neuropsychologia, 16:151–168Google Scholar
  5. Faugier-Grimaud S, Frenois C, Peronnet F (1985) Effects of posterior parietal lesions on visually guided movements in monkeys: Exp Brain Res 59:125–138Google Scholar
  6. Fisk JD, Goodale MA (1990). The effect of instructions to subjects on the programming of visually directed reaching movements. J Mot Behav 21:5–19Google Scholar
  7. Gazzaniga MS, Bogen JE, Sperry RW (1967) Dyspraxia following division of the cerebral commissures. Arch Neurol 16:606–612Google Scholar
  8. Goodale MA (1988) Hemispheric differences in motor control. Behav Brain Res 30:203–214Google Scholar
  9. 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 320:748–750PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Haaxma R, Kuypers HGJM (1975) Intrahemispheric cortical connexions and visual guidance of hand and finger movements in the rhesus monkey. Brain 98:239–260Google Scholar
  11. Haggard P, Wing AM (1990) Assessing and reporting the accuracy of position measurements made with optical tracking systems. J Mot Behav 22:315–321Google Scholar
  12. 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)Google Scholar
  13. Jeannerod M (1981) Intersegmental coordination during reaching at natural visual objects. In: Long J, Baddeley A (ed), Attention and performance IX. Hillsdale, Erlbaum pp 153–168Google Scholar
  14. Jeannerod M (1984) The timing of natural prehension movements. J Mot Behav 16:235–254PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Jeannerod M (1986) The formation of finger grip during prehension: a cortically mediated visuomotor pattern. Behav Brain Res 19:99–116Google Scholar
  16. Jeannerod M (1988) The neural and behavioural organization of goal-directed movements. Clarendon Press OxfordGoogle Scholar
  17. 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 387–409Google Scholar
  18. Jeannerod M, Michel F, Prablanc C (1984) The control of hand movements in a case of hemianaesthesia following a parietal lesion. Brain 107:899–920Google Scholar
  19. Kimura D (1986) Neuropsychological test procedures. DK Consultants, London, OntarioGoogle Scholar
  20. Kirk RE (1982) Experimental design: procedures for the behavioral sciences. Brooks/Cole, Belmont, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  21. Klapp ST (1975) Feedback versus motor programming in the control of aimed movements. J Exp Psychol 104:147–153Google Scholar
  22. LaMotte RH, Acuna C (1978) Deficits in accuracy of reaching after removal of posterior parietal cortex in monkeys. Brain Research 139:309–326Google Scholar
  23. Lawrence DG, Hopkins DA (1972) Developmental aspects of pyramidal control in the rhesus monkey. Brain Research 40:117–118Google Scholar
  24. Marteniuk RG, MacKenzie CL, Jeannerod M, Athenes S, Dugas C (1987) Constraints on human arm movement trajectories. Canad Psychol 41:365–378Google Scholar
  25. 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 49–64Google Scholar
  26. Muir RB (1985) Small hand muscles in precision grip: a corticospinal prerogative? Exp Brain Res [Suppl] 10:155–174Google Scholar
  27. Muir RB, Lemon RN (1983) Corticospinal neurons with a special role in precision grip. Brain Res 261:312–316Google Scholar
  28. Passingham R, Perry H, Wilkinson F (1978) Failure to develop a precision grip in monkeys with unilateral neocortical lesions made in infancy. Brain Res 145:410–414Google Scholar
  29. 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 305–326Google Scholar
  30. 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 111:643–674Google Scholar
  31. 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 35:113–124Google Scholar
  32. 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 24–40Google Scholar
  33. 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 32:645–650Google Scholar
  34. Von Hofsten C (1979) Development of visually directed reaching: the approach phase. J Hum Mov Stud 5:160–178Google Scholar
  35. Wallace SA, Weeks DL (1988) Temporal constraints in the control of prehensile movement. J Mot Behav 20:81–105PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Wing AM, Turton A, Fraser C (1986) Grasp size and accuracy of approach in reaching. J Mot Behav 18:245–260PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Zelaznik HN, Hawkins B, Kisselburgh L (1983) Rapid visual feedback processing in single-aiming movements. J Mot Behav 15:217–236Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. S. Jakobson
    • 1
  • M. A. Goodale
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyThe University of Western OntarioLondonCanada

Personalised recommendations