Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 151, Issue 2, pp 158–166 | Cite as

Effects of object shape and visual feedback on hand configuration during grasping

  • Luis F. Schettino
  • Sergei V. Adamovich
  • Howard Poizner
Research Article


Normal subjects gradually preshape their hands during a grasping movement in order to conform the hand to the shape of a target object. The evolution of hand preshaping may depend on visual feedback about arm and hand position as well as on target shape and location at specific times during the movement. The present study manipulated object shape in order to produce differentiable patterns of finger placement along two orthogonal "dimensions" (flexion/extension and abduction/adduction), and manipulated the amount of available visual information during a grasp. Normal subjects were asked to reach to and grasp a set of objects presented in a randomized fashion at a fixed spatial location in three visual feedback conditions: Full Vision (both hand and target visible), Object Vision (only the object was visible but not the hand) and No Vision (vision of neither the hand nor the object during the movement). Flexion/extension angles of the metacarpophalangeal and proximal interphalangeal joints of the index, ring, middle and pinkie fingers as well as the abduction/adduction angles between the index-middle and middle-ring fingers were recorded. Kinematic analysis revealed that as visual feedback was reduced, movement duration increased and time to peak aperture of the hand decreased, in accord with previously reported studies. Analysis of the patterns of joint flexion/extension and abduction/adduction per object shape revealed that preshaping based on the abduction/adduction dimension occurred early during the reach for all visual feedback conditions (~45% of normalized movement time). This early preshaping across visual feedback conditions suggests the existence of mechanisms involved in the selection of basic hand configurations. Furthermore, while configuration changes in the flexion/extension dimension resulting in well-defined hand configurations occurred earlier during the movement in the Object Vision and No Vision conditions (45%), those in the Full Vision condition were observed only after 75% of the movement, as the moving hand entered the central region of the visual field. The data indicate that there are at least two control mechanisms at work during hand preshaping, an early predictive phase during which grip selection is attained regardless of availability of visual feedback and a late responsive phase during which subjects may use visual feedback to optimize their grasp.


Prehension Hand preshaping Visual feedback Visuomotor control 



The research was supported in part by Research Grant 1 R01 NS36449-04 from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, to Rutgers University. The authors would like to thank Drs. J. Soechting and M. Santello for providing them with the blueprints of the object shapes employed in this study.


  1. Berthier NE, Clifton RK, Gullapalli V, McCall DD, Robin DJ (1996) Visual information and object size in the control of reaching. J Motor Behav 28:187–197Google Scholar
  2. Carlton LG (1981) Processing visual feedback information for movement control. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 7:1019–1030CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Castiello U, Bonfiglioli C, Bennett M (1996) How perceived object dimension influences prehension. Neuroreport 7:825–829PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Chieffi S, Gentilucci M (1993) Coordination between the transport and the grasp components during prehension movements. Exp Brain Res 94:471–477PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Churchill A, Hopkins B, Ronnqvuist L, Vogt S (2000) Vision of the hand and environmental context in human prehension. Exp Brain Res 134:81–89PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Connolly JD, Goodale MA (1999) The role of visual feedback of hand position in the control of manual prehension. Exp Brain Res 125:281–386PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Desmurget M, Grafton S (2000) Forward modeling allows feedback control for fast reaching movements. Trends Cogn Sci 4:423–431PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Galea MP, Castiello U, Dalwood N (2001) Thumb invariance during prehension movement: effects of object orientation. Neuroreport 12:2185–2187PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Gardner E, Ro JY, Debowy D, Ghosh S (1999) Facilitation of neuronal activity in somatosensory and posterior parietal cortex during prehension. Exp Brain Res 127:329–354PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Gentilucci M, Jeannerod M, Tadary B, Decety J (1994) Dissociating visual and kinesthetic coordinates during pointing movements. Exp Brain Res 102:359–366PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Jackson SR, Jackson GM, Harrison J, Henderson L, Kennard C (1995) The internal control of action and Parkinson's disease: a kinematic analysis of visually-guided and memory-guided prehension movements. Exp Brain Res 105:147–162PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Jakobson LS, Goodale MA (1993) Coordination between the transport and the grasp components during prehension movements. Exp Brain Res 86:199–208Google Scholar
  13. Jeannerod M (1981) Intersegmental coordination during reaching at natural visual objects. In: Long J, Baddeley A (eds) Attention and performance XI. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJGoogle Scholar
  14. Jeannerod M (1984) The timing of a natural prehension movement. J Motor Behav 26:235–254Google Scholar
  15. Jeannerod M (1997) The cognitive neuroscience of action. Blackwell, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  16. Jeannerod M, Arbib M, Rizzolatti G, Sakata H (1995) Grasping objects: the cortical mechanisms of visuomotor transformation. Trends Neurosci 18:314–320PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Kothari A, Poizner H, Figel T (1992) Interactive three-dimensional graphic analysis for studies of neural disorders of movement. SPIE Visual Data Interpretation 1668:82–92Google Scholar
  18. Kuhtz-Buschbeck J, Stolze H, Johnk K, Boczek-Funcke A, Illert M (1998) Development of prehension movements in children: a kinematic study. Exp Brain Res 122:181–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Luppino G, Murata A, Govoni P, Matelli P (1999) Largely segregated parietofrontal connections linking rostral intraparietal cortex (areas AIP and VIP) and the ventral premotor cortex (areas F5 and F4). Exp Brain Res 128:181–187PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Mahalanobis PC (1936) On the generalised distance in statistics. Proc Indian Natl Inst Sci 2:49–55Google Scholar
  21. Marzke M, Marzke R (2000) Evolution of the human hand: approaches to acquiring, analysing and interpreting the anatomical evidence. J Anat 197:121–140CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Poizner H, Wooten E, Salot D (1986) Computerographic modeling and analysis: a portable system for tracking arm movements in three-dimensional space. Behav Res Methods Instr Comput 18:427–433Google Scholar
  23. Poizner H, Mack L, Verfaellie M, Rothi LJG, Heilman KM (1990) Three-dimensional computerographic analysis of apraxia. Brain 113:85–101PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Rizzolatti G, Camarda R, Fogassi L, Gentilucci M, Luppino G, Matelli P (1988) Functional organization of inferior area 6 in the macaque monkey. II Area F5 and the control of distal movements. Exp Brain Res 71:491–507PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Santello M, Soechting JF (1998) Gradual molding of the hand to object contours. J Neurophysiol 79:1307–1320PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Santello M, Flanders M, Soechting JF (2002) Patterns of hand motion during grasping and the influence of sensory guidance. J Neurosci 22:1426–1435PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Schettino LF, Adamovich SV, Poizner H (2000) The role of visual feedback in the determination of hand configuration during grasping. Paper presented at the Society for Neuroscience 26th Meeting, New Orleans, LAGoogle Scholar
  28. Shikata E, Tanaka Y, Nakamura H, Taira M, Sakata H (1996) Selectivity of the parietal visual neurones in 3D orientation of surface of stereoscopic stimuli. Neuroreport 7:2389–2394PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Sivak B, Mackenzie CL (1992) The contributions of peripheral vision and central vision to prehension. In: Proteau L, Elliott D (eds) Vision and motor control. Elsevier Science, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  30. Ungerleider L, Mishkin M (1982) Two cortical visual systems. In: Ingle DJ, Goodale MA, Mansfield RJW (eds) Analysis of visual behavior. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 549–586Google Scholar
  31. Wing A, Fraser C (1983) The contribution of the thumb to reaching movements. Q J Exp Psychol 35A:297–309Google Scholar
  32. Wing A, Turton A, Fraser C (1986) Grasp size and accuracy of approach in reaching. J Motor Behav 18:245–260Google Scholar
  33. Zeki S (1993) A vision of the brain. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luis F. Schettino
    • 1
    • 3
  • Sergei V. Adamovich
    • 1
    • 2
  • Howard Poizner
    • 1
    • 4
  1. 1.Center for Molecular and Behavioral NeuroscienceRutgers UniversityNewarkUSA
  2. 2.Institute for Information Transmission ProblemsRussian Academy of ScienceMoscowRussia
  3. 3.Psychology DepartmentWilliams CollegeWilliamstownUSA
  4. 4.197 University AvenueUniversity HeightsNewarkUSA

Personalised recommendations