Advertisement

Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 212, Issue 1, pp 125–142 | Cite as

To use or to move: goal-set modulates priming when grasping real tools

  • Kenneth F. ValyearEmail author
  • Craig S. Chapman
  • Jason P. Gallivan
  • Robert S. Mark
  • Jody C. Culham
Research Article

Abstract

How we interact with objects depends on what we intend to do with them. In the current work, we show that priming and the kinematics of grasping depend on the goals of grasping, as well as the context in which tasks are presented. We asked participants to grasp familiar kitchen tools in order to either move them, grasp-to-move (GTM), or to demonstrate their common use, grasp-to-use (GTU). When tasks were blocked separately (Experiment 1), we found that priming was only evident for the GTU task. However, when tasks were presented in the same block of trials (Experiment 2), we observed priming for both tasks. Independent of priming, differences in kinematics and reaction times according to task were evident for both Experiments. Longer reaction times for the GTU task indicate more extensive planning, and differences in grasping reflect the characteristics of subsequent actions. Priming of real grasping is determined by task goals as well as task setting, both of which are likely to modulate how object features (affordances) are perceived and influence the planning of future actions.

Keywords

Action priming Grasping Tool use Motor affordances Action planning 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was funded by an operating grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (Grant # 249877-2006 RGPIN) to J.C and a postgraduate Canada Graduate Scholarship from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada to K.V. We thank Christina Merkley, Gavin Buckingham, and Paul Gribble for their helpful comments on earlier versions of the manuscript.

Supplementary material

221_2011_2705_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (355 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 355 kb)

References

  1. Ansuini C, Santello M, Massaccesi S, Castiello U (2006) Effects of end-goal on hand shaping. J Neurophysiol 95:2456–2465PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ansuini C, Giosa L, Turella L, Altoe G, Castiello U (2008) An object for an action, the same object for other actions: effects on hand shaping. Exp Brain Res 185:111–119PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Armbruster C, Spijkers W (2006) Movement planning in prehension: do intended actions influence the initial reach and grasp movement? Mot Control 10:311–329Google Scholar
  4. Bekkering H, Neggers SF (2002) Visual search is modulated by action intentions. Psychol Sci 13:370–374PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bub DN, Masson ME, Bukach CM (2003) Gesturing and naming: the use of functional knowledge in object identification. Psychol Sci 14:467–472PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bub DN, Masson ME, Cree GS (2008) Evocation of functional and volumetric gestural knowledge by objects and words. Cognition 106:27–58PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buccino G, Sato M, Cattaneo L, Roda F, Riggio L (2009) Broken affordances, broken objects: a TMS study. Neuropsychologia 47:3074–3078PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Buxbaum LJ, Sirigu A, Schwartz MF, Klatzky R (2003) Cognitive representations of hand posture in ideomotor apraxia. Neuropsychologia 41:1091–1113PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cant JS, Westwood DA, Valyear KF, Goodale MA (2005) No evidence for visuomotor priming in a visually guided action task. Neuropsychologia 43:216–226PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carey DP, Harvey M, Milner AD (1996) Visuomotor sensitivity for shape and orientation in a patient with visual form agnosia. Neuropsychologia 34:329–337PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chao LL, Martin A (2000) Representation of manipulable man-made objects in the dorsal stream. Neuroimage 12:478–484PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cisek P, Kalaska JF (2010) Neural mechanisms for interacting with a world full of action choices. Annu Rev Neurosci 33:269–298PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cohen RG, Rosenbaum DA (2004) Where grasps are made reveals how grasps are planned: generation and recall of motor plans. Exp Brain Res 157:486–495PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Craighero L, Fadiga L, Umilta CA, Rizzolatti G (1996) Evidence for visuomotor priming effect. Neuroreport 8:347–349PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Daprati E, Sirigu A (2006) How we interact with objects: learning from brain lesions. Trends Cogn Sci 10:265–270PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Edwards MG, Humphreys GW, Castiello U (2003) Motor facilitation following action observation: a behavioural study in prehensile action. Brain Cogn 53:495–502PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Flanagan JR, Bowman MC, Johansson RS (2006) Control strategies in object manipulation tasks. Curr Opin Neurobiol 16:650–659PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Frey SH (2007) What puts the how in where? Tool use and the divided visual streams hypothesis. Cortex 43:368–375PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Friedman J, Flash T (2007) Task-dependent selection of grasp kinematics and stiffness in human object manipulation. Cortex 43:444–460PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gallivan JP, Cavina-Pratesi C, Culham JC (2009) Is that within reach? fMRI reveals that the human superior parieto-occipital cortex encodes objects reachable by the hand. J Neurosci 29:4381–4391PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Garofeanu C, Kroliczak G, Goodale MA, Humphrey GK (2004) Naming and grasping common objects: a priming study. Exp Brain Res 159:55–64PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Gentilucci M (2002) Object motor representation and reaching-grasping control. Neuropsychologia 40:1139–1153PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gentilucci M (2003) Object familiarity affects finger shaping during grasping of fruit stalks. Exp Brain Res 149:395–400PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Gianelli C, Dalla Volta R, Barbieri F, Gentilucci M (2008) Automatic grasp imitation following action observation affects estimation of intrinsic object properties. Brain Res 1218:166–180PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gibson JJ (1979) The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin, DallasGoogle Scholar
  26. Glover S, Rosenbaum DA, Graham J, Dixon P (2004) Grasping the meaning of words. Exp Brain Res 154:103–108PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Goodale MA, Milner AD (1992) Separate visual pathways for perception and action. Trends Neurosci 15:20–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Goodale MA, Milner AD, Jakobson LS, Carey DP (1991) A neurological dissociation between perceiving objects and grasping them. Nature 349:154–156PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Humphreys GW, Riddoch MJ (2000) One more cup of coffee for the road: object-action assemblies, response blocking and response capture after frontal lobe damage. Exp Brain Res 133:81–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Humphreys GW, Riddoch MJ (2001) Detection by action: neuropsychological evidence for action-defined templates in search. Nat Neurosci 4:84–88PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Humphreys GW, Yoon EY, Kumar S, Lestou V, Kitadono K, Roberts KL, Riddoch MJ (2009) The interaction of attention and action: From seeing action to acting on perception. Br J Psychol 101:185–206PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jax SA, Rosenbaum DA (2007) Hand path priming in manual obstacle avoidance: evidence that the dorsal stream does not only control visually guided actions in real time. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 33:425–441PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jax SA, Rosenbaum DA (2009) Hand path priming in manual obstacle avoidance: rapid decay of dorsal stream information. Neuropsychologia 47:1573–1577PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jeannerod M, Decety J, Michel F (1994) Impairment of grasping movements following a bilateral posterior parietal lesion. Neuropsychologia 32:369–380PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Johnson-Frey SH, McCarty ME, Keen R (2004) Reaching beyond spatial perception: Effects of intended future actions on visually guided prehension. Visual Cognition 11:371–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kien J, Schleidt M, Schöttner B (1991) Temporal segmentation in hand movements of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and comparisons with humans. Ethology 89:297–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Klatzky RL, McCloskey B, Doherty S, Pellegrino J, Smith T (1987) Knowledge about hand shaping and knowledge about objects. J Mot Behav 19:187–213PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Klatzky RL, Fikes TG, Pellegrino JW (1995) Planning for hand shape and arm transport when reaching for objects. Acta Psychol (Amst) 88:209–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kroliczak G, Westwood DA, Goodale MA (2006) Differential effects of advance semantic cues on grasping, naming, and manual estimation. Exp Brain Res 175:139–152PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lhermitte F (1983) ‘Utilization behaviour’ and its relation to lesions of the frontal lobes. Brain 106(Pt 2):237–255PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Marteniuk RG, MacKenzie CL, Jeannerod M, Athenes S, Dugas C (1987) Constraints on human arm movement trajectories. Can J Psychol 41:365–378PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Masson ME, Bub DN, Breuer AT (in press) Priming of reach and grasp actions by handled objects. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept PerformGoogle Scholar
  43. Murata A, Fadiga L, Fogassi L, Gallese V, Raos V, Rizzolatti G (1997) Object representation in the ventral premotor cortex (area F5) of the monkey. J Neurophysiol 78:2226–2230PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Murata A, Gallese V, Luppino G, Kaseda M, Sakata H (2000) Selectivity for the shape, size, and orientation of objects for grasping in neurons of monkey parietal area AIP. J Neurophysiol 83:2580–2601PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Ott I, Schleidt M, Kien J (1994) Temporal organisation of action in baboons: comparisons with the temporal segmentation in chimpanzee and human behaviour. Brain Behav Evol 44:101–107PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pavese A, Buxbaum LJ (2002) Action matters: the role of action plans and affordances in selection for action. Vis Cogn 9:559–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pellegrino JW, Klatzky RL, McCloskey BP (1989) Timecourse of preshaping for functional responses to objects. J Mot Behav 21:307–316PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Randerath J, Li Y, Goldenberg G, Hermsdorfer J (2009) Grasping tools: effects of task and apraxia. Neuropsychologia 47:497–505PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Randerath J, Goldenberg G, Spijkers W, Li Y, Hermsdorfer J (2010) Different left brain regions are essential for grasping a tool compared with its subsequent use. Neuroimage 53:171–180PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rastle K, Kinoshita S, Lupker SJ, Coltheart M (2003) Cross-task strategic effects. Mem Cogn 31:867–876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Riddoch MJ, Edwards MG, Humphreys GW, West R, Heafield T (1998) Visual affordances direct action: neuropsychological evidence from manual interference. Cogn Neuropsychol 15:645–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Riddoch MJ, Humphreys GW, Edwards MG (2000a) Neuropsychological evidence distinguishing object selection from action (effector) selection. Cogn Neuropsychol 17:547–562PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Riddoch MJ, Humphreys GW, Edwards MG (2000b) Visual affordances and object selection. In: Monsell S, Driver J (eds) Attention and performance XVIII. MIT press, Cambridge, pp 603–626Google Scholar
  54. Rizzolatti G, Camarda R, Fogassi L, Gentilucci M, Luppino G, Matelli M (1988) Functional organization of inferior area 6 in the macaque monkey. II. Area F5 and the control of distal movements. Exp Brain Res 71:491–507PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rosenbaum DA, Jorgensen MJ (1992) Planning macroscopic aspects of manual control. Hum Mov Sci 11:61–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rosenbaum DA, Vaughan J, Barnes HJ, Jorgensen MJ (1992) Time course of movement planning: selection of handgrips for object manipulation. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 18:1058–1073PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rosenbaum DA, Cohen RG, Dawson AM, Jax SA, Meulenbroek RG, van der Wel R, Vaughan J (2009) The posture-based motion planning framework: new findings related to object manipulation, moving around obstacles, moving in three spatial dimensions, and haptic tracking. Adv Exp Med Biol 629:485–497PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Shallice T, Burgess PW, Schon F, Baxter DM (1989) The origins of utilization behaviour. Brain 112(Pt 6):1587–1598PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sirigu A, Cohen L, Duhamel JR, Pillon B, Dubois B, Agid Y (1995) A selective impairment of hand posture for object utilization in apraxia. Cortex 31:41–55PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Song JH, Nakayama K (2007) Automatic adjustment of visuomotor readiness. J Vis 7(2):1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Symes E, Ellis R, Tucker M (2006) Visual object affordances: object orientation. Acta Psychol (Amst)Google Scholar
  62. Taira M, Mine S, Georgopoulos AP, Murata A, Sakata H (1990) Parietal cortex neurons of the monkey related to the visual guidance of hand movement. Exp Brain Res 83:29–36PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Tucker M, Ellis R (1998) On the relations between seen objects and components of potential actions. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 24:830–846PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Tucker M, Ellis R (2004) Action priming by briefly presented objects. Acta Psychol (Amst) 116:185–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Valyear KF, Cavina-Pratesi C, Stiglick AJ, Culham JC (2007) Does tool-related fMRI activity within the intraparietal sulcus reflect the plan to grasp? Neuroimage 36(Suppl 2):T94–T108PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Vingerhoets G, Vandamme K, Vercammen A (2009) Conceptual and physical object qualities contribute differently to motor affordances. Brain Cogn 69:481–489PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Whitwell RL, Goodale MA (2009) Updating the programming of a precision grip is a function of recent history of available feedback. Exp Brain Res 194:619–629PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Whitwell RL, Lambert LM, Goodale MA (2008) Grasping future events: explicit knowledge of the availability of visual feedback fails to reliably influence prehension. Exp Brain Res 188:603–611PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kenneth F. Valyear
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Craig S. Chapman
    • 1
  • Jason P. Gallivan
    • 1
  • Robert S. Mark
    • 1
  • Jody C. Culham
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Western OntarioLondonCanada
  2. 2.Frey Neuroimaging Lab, Department of PsychologyUniversity of OregonEugeneUSA

Personalised recommendations