Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 152, Issue 4, pp 489–498

The role of vision on hand preshaping during reach to grasp

  • Sara A. Winges
  • Douglas J. Weber
  • Marco Santello
Research Article


During reaching to grasp objects with different shapes hand posture is molded gradually to the object's contours. The present study examined the extent to which the temporal evolution of hand posture depends on continuous visual feedback. We asked subjects to reach and grasp objects with different shapes under five vision conditions (VCs). Subjects wore liquid crystal spectacles that occluded vision at four different latencies from onset of the reach. As a control, full-vision trials (VC5) were interspersed among the blocked vision trials. Object shapes and all VCs were presented to the subjects in random order. Hand posture was measured by 15 sensors embedded in a glove. Linear regression analysis, discriminant analysis, and information theory were used to assess the effect of removing vision on the temporal evolution of hand shape. We found that reach duration increased when vision was occluded early in the reach. This was caused primarily by a slower approach of the hand toward the object near the end of the reach. However, vision condition did not have a significant effect on the covariation patterns of joint rotations, indicating that the gradual evolution of hand posture occurs in a similar fashion regardless of vision. Discriminant analysis further supported this interpretation, as the extent to which hand posture resembled object shape and the rate at which hand posture discrimination occurred throughout the movement were similar across vision conditions. These results extend previous observations on memory-guided reaches by showing that continuous visual feedback of the hand and/or object is not necessary to allow the hand to gradually conform to object contours.


Hand Vision Reaching Grasping Kinematics 


  1. Berthier NE, Clifton RK, Gullapalli V, McCall DD, Robin DJ (1996) Visual information and object size in the control of reaching. J Mot Behav 28:187–197PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Chieffi S, Gentilucci M (1993) Coordination between the transport and the grasp components during prehension movements. Exp Brain Res 94:471–477PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Churchill A, Hopkins B, Ronnqvist L, Vogt S (2000) Vision of the hand and environmental context of human prehension. Exp Brain Res 134:81–89PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Connolly JD, Goodale MA (1999) The role of visual feedback of hand position in the control of manual prehension. Exp Brain Res 125:281–286PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Elliot D, Allard F (1985) The utilization of visual feedback information during rapid pointing movements. Q J Exp Psychol A 37:407–425PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Gentilucci M, Toni I, Chieffi S, Pavesi G (1994) The role of proprioception in the control of prehension movements: a kinematic study in a peripherally deafferented patient and in normal subjects. Exp Brain Res 99:483–500PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Jakobson LS, Goodale MA (1991) Factors affecting higher-order movement planning: a kinematic analysis of human prehension. Exp Brain Res 86:199–208PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Jeannerod M (1981) Intersegmental coordination during reaching at natural visual objects. In: Long J, Baddeley A (eds) Attention and performance IX. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp153–168Google Scholar
  9. Jeannerod M (1984) The timing of natural prehension movements. J Mot Behav 16:235–254Google Scholar
  10. Jeannerod M (1986) The formation of finger grip during prehension. A cortically mediated visuomotor pattern. Behav Brain Res 19:99–116PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Jeannerod M (1999) Visuomotor channels: their integration in goal-directed prehension. Hum Mov Sci 18:201–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Johansson RS, Westling G, Bäckström A, Flanagan JR (2001) Eye-hand coordination in object manipulation. J Neurosci 21:6917–6932PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Johnson KO, Phillips JR (1981) Tactile spatial resolution. I. Two-point discrimination, gap detection, grating recognition. J Neurophysiol 46:1177–1191PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Johnson RA, Wichern DW (1992) Applied multivariate statistical analysis. Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  15. Marteniuk RG, MacKenzie CL, Athenes S (1990) Functional relationships between grasp and transport components in a prehension task. Hum Mov Sci 9:149–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mason CR, Gomez JE, Ebner, TJ (2001) Hand synergies during reach-to-grasp. J Neurophysiol 86:2896–2910PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Milgram P (1987) A spectacle-mounted liquid-crystal tachistoscope. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 19:449–456Google Scholar
  18. Sakitt B (1980) Visual-motor efficiency (VME) and the information transmitted in visual-motor tasks. Bull Psychol Soc 16:329–332Google Scholar
  19. Santello M (2002) Kinematic synergies for the control of hand shape. Arch Ital Biol 140:221–228PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Santello M, Soechting JF (1997) Matching object size by controlling finger span and hand shape. Somatosens Mot Res 14:203–212CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Santello M, Soechting JF (1998) Gradual molding of the hand to object contours. J Neurophysiol 79:1307–1320PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Santello M, Flanders M, Soechting JF (1998) Postural synergies for tool use. J Neurosci 18:10105–10115PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Santello M, Flanders M, Soechting, JF (2002) Patterns of hand motion and the influence of sensory guidance. J Neurosci 22:1426–1435PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Schettino LF, Adamovich, SV, Poizner H (2000) Effects of object shape and visual feedback on hand configuration during grasping. Soc Neurosci Abstr 26:179Google Scholar
  25. Schettino LF, Adamovich SV, Gordon AM, Poizner H (2001) The role of the transport phase during grasping tactilely-defined target shapes. Soc Neurosci Abstr 27:792Google Scholar
  26. Shannon CE (1948) The mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst Technol J 27:379–423Google Scholar
  27. 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 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sara A. Winges
    • 1
  • Douglas J. Weber
    • 2
    • 3
  • Marco Santello
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of KinesiologyArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  2. 2.Department of BioengineeringArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  3. 3.Centre for NeuroscienceUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations