Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 184, Issue 3, pp 283–293

The coordination patterns observed when two hands reach-to-grasp separate objects

  • Geoffrey P. Bingham
  • Kirstie Hughes
  • Mark Mon-Williams
Research Article

Abstract

What determines coordination patterns when both hands reach to grasp separate objects at the same time? It is known that synchronous timing is preferred as the most stable mode of bimanual coordination. Nonetheless, normal unimanual prehension behaviour predicts asynchrony when the two hands reach towards unequal targets, with synchrony restricted to targets equal in size and distance. Additionally, sufficiently separated targets require sequential looking. Does synchrony occur in all cases because it is preferred in bimanual coordination or does asynchrony occur because of unimanual task constraints and the need for sequential looking? We investigated coordinative timing when participants (n = 8) moved their right (preferred) hand to the same object at a fixed distance but the left hand to objects of different width (3, 5, and 7 cm) and grip surface size (1, 2, and 3 cm) placed at different distances (20, 30, and 40 cm) over 270 randomised trials. The hand movements consisted of two components: (1) an initial component (IC) during which the hand reached towards the target while forming an appropriate grip aperture, stopping at (but not touching) the object; (2) a completion component (CC) during which the finger and thumb closed on the target. The two limbs started the IC together but did not interact until the deceleration phase when evidence of synchronisation began to appear. Nonetheless, asynchronous timing was present at the end of the IC and preserved through the CC even with equidistant targets. Thus, there was synchrony but requirements for visual information ultimately yielded asynchronous coordinative timing.

Keywords

Bimanual Prehension Movement Coordination Attention 

References

  1. Bingham GP (2001) A perceptually driven dynamical model of rhythmic limb movement and bimanual coordination. In: Proceedings of the 23rd annual conference of the cognitive science society, LEA Publishers, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 75–79Google Scholar
  2. Bingham GP (2004a) Another timing variable composed of state variables: phase perception and phase driven oscillators. In: Hecht H, Savelsbergh GJP (eds) Theories of time-to-contact. MIT, BostonGoogle Scholar
  3. Bingham GP (2004b) A perceptually driven dynamical model of bimanual rhythmic movement (and phase perception). Ecol Psychol 16:45–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bingham GP, Schmidt RC, Zaal FTJM (1999) Visual perception of relative phasing of human limb movements. Percept Psychophys 61:246–258PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bingham GP, Zaal FTJM, Shull JA, Collins D (2000) The effect of frequency on visual perception of relative phase and phase variability of two oscillating objects. Exp Brain Res 136:543–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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 98:535–541PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Castiello U, Bennett KM, Stelmach GE (1993) The bilateral reach to grasp movement. Behav Brain Res 56:43–57PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Diedrichsen J, Hazeltine E, Kennerley S, Ivry RB (2001) Moving to directly cued locations abolishes spatial interference during bimanual actions. Psychol Sci 12:493–498PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fisk JD, Goodale MA (1988) The effects of unilateral brain damage on visually guided reaching: hemispheric differences in the nature of the deficit. Exp Brain Res 72:425–435PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fitts PM (1954) The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of the movement. J Exp Psychol 47:381–391PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Haggard P, Wing AM (1995) Coordinated responses following mechanical perturbation of the arm during prehension. Exp Brain Res 102:483–494PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ivry R, Diedrichsen J, Spencer R, Hazeltine E, Semjen A (2004) A cognitive neuroscience perspective on bimanual coordination and interference. In: Swinnen S, Duysens J (eds) Neuro-behavioral determinants of interlimb coordination. Kluwer, Boston, pp 259–295Google Scholar
  13. Jackson GM, Jackson SR, Kritikos A (1999) Attention for action: coordinating bimanual reach-to-grasp movements. Br J Psychol 90:247–270PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jackson SR, Jones CA, Newport R, Pritchard C (1997) A kinematic analysis of goal-directed prehension movements executed under binocular, monocular and memory-guided viewing conditions. Vis Cogn 4:113–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jeannerod M (1984) The timing of matural prehension movements. J Mot Behav 16:235–254PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Jeannerod M (1988) The neural and behavioural organisation of goal-directed movements. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  17. Kelso JAS (1995) Dynamic patterns: the self-organisation of brain and behavior. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  18. Kelso JS, Southard DL, Goodman D (1979a) On the nature of human interlimb coordination. Science 203:1029–1031PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kelso JS, Southard DL, Goodman D (1979b) On the coordination of two-handed movements. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 5:229–238PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kunde W, Weigelt M (2005) Goal-congruency in bimanual object manipulation. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 31:145–156PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Liao M, Jagacinski RJ (2000) A dynamical systems approach to manual tracking performance. J Mot Behav 32:361–378PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Loftus A, Goodale MG, Servos P, Mon-Williams M (2004) When two eyes are better than one in prehension: prehension, end-point variance and monocular viewing. Exp Brain Res 158:317–327PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Mechsner F, Kerzel D, Knoblich G, Prinz W (2001) Perceptual basis of bimanual coordination. Nature 414:69–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Meulenbroek RGJ, Rosenbaum DA, Jansen C, Vaughan J, Vogt S (2001) Multijoint grasping movements: simulated and observed effects of object location, object size, and initial aperture. Exp Brain Res 138:219–234PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mon-Williams M, Tresilian (2001) A simple rule of thumb for elegant prehension. Curr Biol 11:1058–1061PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Napier JR (1956) The prehensile movements of the human hand. J Bone Joint Surg 38B:902–913Google Scholar
  27. Paulignan Y, MacKenzie C, Marteniuk R, Jeannerod M (1991) Selective perturbation of visual input during prehension movements. 1. The effects of changing object position. Exp Brain Res 83:502–512PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Riek S, Tresilian JR, Mon-Williams M, Coppard V, Carson RC (2003) Bimanual aiming and overt attention: one law for two hands. Exp Brain Res 153:59–75PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rosenbaum DA, Meulenbroek RGJ, Vaughan J, Jansen C (1999) Coordination of reaching and grasping by capitalizing on obstacle avoidance and other constraints. Exp Brain Res 128:92–100PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schmidt RC, Carello C, Turvey MT (1990) Phase transitions and critical fluctuations in the visual coordination of rhythmic movements between people. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 16:227–247PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Serrien DJ, Li Y, Steyvers M, Debaere F, Swinnen SP (2001) Proprioceptive regulation of interlimb behavior: interference between passive movement and active coordination dynamics. Exp Brain Res 140:411–419PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Smeets JBJ, Brenner E (1999) A new view on grasping. Motor Control 3:237–271PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Stahl JS (1999) Amplitude of human head movements associated with horizontal saccades. Exp Brain Res 126:41–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tresilian JR, Stelmach GE (1997) Common organisation for unimanual and bimanual reach-to-grasp tasks. Exp Brain Res 115:283–299PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tresilian JR, Stelmach GE, Adler CH (1997) Stability of reach-to-grasp movement patterns in Parkinson’s disease. Brain 120:2093–2111PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wilson A, Bingham GP (2005a) Perceptual coupling in rhythmic movement coordination—stable perception leads to stable action. Exp Brain Res 164:517–528PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wilson A, Bingham GP (2005b) Human movement coordination implicates relative direction as the information for relative phase. Exp Brain Res 165:351–361PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wilson AD, Bingham GP, Craig JC (2003) Proprioceptive perception of phase variability. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 29:1179–1190PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wimmers RH, Beek PJ, van Wieringen PCW (1992) Phase transitions in rhythmic tracking movements: a case of unilateral coupling. Hum Mov Sci 11:217–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wing AM, Fraser C (1983) The contribution of the thumb to reaching movements. Q J Exp Psychol 35:297–309Google Scholar
  41. Wing AM, Turton A, Fraser C (1986) Grasp size and accuracy of approach in reaching. J Mot Behav 3:245–260Google Scholar
  42. Winges SA, Weber DJ, Santello M (2003) The role of vision on hand preshaping during reach to grasp. Exp Brain Res 152:489–498PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Geoffrey P. Bingham
    • 1
  • Kirstie Hughes
    • 2
  • Mark Mon-Williams
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA
  2. 2.College of Medicine and Life SciencesUniversity of AberdeenAberdeenScotland, UK

Personalised recommendations