Advertisement

Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 222, Issue 3, pp 265–276 | Cite as

Getting a grip: different actions and visual guidance of the thumb and finger in precision grasping

  • Dean R. Melmoth
  • Simon GrantEmail author
Research Article

Abstract

We manipulated the visual information available for grasping to examine what is visually guided when subjects get a precision grip on a common class of object (upright cylinders). In Experiment 1, objects (2 sizes) were placed at different eccentricities to vary the relative proximity to the participant’s (n = 6) body of their thumb and finger contact positions in the final grip orientations, with vision available throughout or only for movement programming. Thumb trajectories were straighter and less variable than finger paths, and the thumb normally made initial contact with the objects at a relatively invariant landing site, but consistent thumb first-contacts were disrupted without visual guidance. Finger deviations were more affected by the object’s properties and increased when vision was unavailable after movement onset. In Experiment 2, participants (n = 12) grasped ‘glow-in-the-dark’ objects wearing different luminous gloves in which the whole hand was visible or the thumb or the index finger was selectively occluded. Grip closure times were prolonged and thumb first-contacts disrupted when subjects could not see their thumb, whereas occluding the finger resulted in wider grips at contact because this digit remained distant from the object. Results were together consistent with visual feedback guiding the thumb in the period just prior to contacting the object, with the finger more involved in opening the grip and avoiding collision with the opposite contact surface. As people can overtly fixate only one object contact point at a time, we suggest that selecting one digit for online guidance represents an optimal strategy for initial grip placement. Other grasping tasks, in which the finger appears to be used for this purpose, are discussed.

Keywords

Eye-hand coordination Kinematics Digit trajectories Obstacle avoidance Visual feedback 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by The Wellcome Trust (Grant 066282). We thank Dr Lore Thaler, Prof Mark Mon-Williams and an anonymous reviewer for helpful comments.

References

  1. Anderson J, Bingham GP (2010) A solution to the online guidance problem for targeted reaches: proportional rate control using relative disparity τ. Exp Brain Res 205:291–306PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brouwer A-M, Franz VH, Gegenfurtner KR (2009) Differences in fixations between grasping and viewing objects. J Vis 9:1–24Google Scholar
  3. Castiello U (2005) The neuroscience of grasping. Nat Rev 6:726–736Google Scholar
  4. Churchill A, Hopkins B, Rönnqvist L, Vogt S (2000) Vision of the hand and environmental context in human prehension. Exp Brain Res 134:81–89PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. de Grave DDJ, Hesse C, Brouwer A-M, Franz VH (2008) Fixation locations when grasping partly occluded objects. J Vis 8:1–11PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Desanghere L, Marotta JJ (2011) “Graspability” of objects affects gaze patterns during perception and action tasks. Exp Brain Res 212:177–187PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Forssberg H, Eliasson AC, Kinoshita H, Johansson RS, Westling G (1991) Development of human precision grip I: basic coordination of force. Exp Brain Res 85:451–457PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Galea MP, Castiello U, Dalwood N (2001) Thumb invariance during prehension movement: effects of object orientation. NeuroReport 12:2185–2187PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Haggard P, Wing AM (1997) On the hand transport component of prehensile movements. J Mot Behav 29:282–287PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hoff B, Arbib MA (1993) Models of trajectory formation and temporal interaction of reach and grasp. J Mot Behav 25:175–192PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jakobson LS, Goodale MA (1991) Factors affecting higher-order movement planning: a kinematic analysis of human prehension. Exp Brain Res 86:199–208PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jeannerod M (1981) Intersegmental coordination during reaching at natural visual objects. In: Long J, Baddeley A (eds) Attention and performance IX. Eribaum, New Jersey, pp 153–169Google Scholar
  13. Johansson RS, Westling G, Bäckström A, Flanagan JR (2001) Eye-hand coordination in object manipulation. J Neurosci 21:6917–6932PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Kleinholdermann U, Brenner E, Franz VH, Smeets JBJ (2007) Grasping trapezoidal objects. Exp Brain Res 180:415–420PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kritikos A, Dunai J, Castiello U (2001) Modulation of reach-to-grasp parameters: semantic category, volumetric properties and distractor interference? Exp Brain Res 138:54–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lederman SJ, Wing AM (2003) Perceptual judgement, grasp point selection and object symmetry. Exp Brain Res 152:156–165PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Melmoth DR, Grant S (2006) Advantages of binocular vision for the control of reaching and grasping. Exp Brain Res 171:371–388PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Melmoth DR, Storoni M, Todd G, Finlay AL, Grant S (2007) Dissociation between vergence and binocular disparity cues in the control of prehension. Exp Brain Res 183:283–298PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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
  20. Mon-Williams M, McIntosh RD (2000) A test between two hypotheses and a possible third way for the control of prehension. Exp Brain Res 134:268–273PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mon-Williams M, Tresilian JR (2001) A simple rule of thumb for elegant prehension. Curr Biol 11:1058–1061PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Napier JR (1961) Prehensibility and opposability in the hands of primates. Symp Zool Soc 5:115–132Google Scholar
  23. Paulignan Y, Frak VG, Toni I, Jeannerod M (1997) Influence of object position and size on human prehension movements. Exp Brain Res 114:226–234PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rosenbaum DA, Meulenbrook RJ, Vaughan J, Jansen C (2001) Posture-based motion planning: applications to grasping. Psychol Rev 108:709–734PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sakata H, Taira M, Kusunoki M, Murata A, Tanaka Y (1997) The parietal association cortex in depth perception and visual control of hand action. Trends Neurosci 20:350–356PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schettino LF, Adamovich SV, Poizner H (2003) Effects of object shape and visual feedback on hand configuration during grasping. Exp Brain Res 151:158–166PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schlicht EJ, Schrater PR (2007) Effects of visual uncertainty on grasping movements. Exp Brain Res 182:47–57PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Servos P, Goodale MA (1994) Binocular vision and the on-line control of human prehension. Exp Brain Res 98:119–127PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Smeets JB, Brenner E (1999) A new view on grasping. Mot Control 3:237–271Google Scholar
  30. Smeets JB, Brenner E (2001) Independent movements of the digits in grasping. Exp Brain Res 139:92–100PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Smeets JB, Brenner E (2002) Does a complex model help to understand grasping? Exp Brain Res 144:132–135PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Soechting JF, Buneo CA, Hermann U, Flanders M (1995) Moving effortlessly in three dimensions: does Donder’s law apply to arm movement? J Neurosci 15:6271–6280PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Valyear KF, Chapman CS, Gallivan JP, Marks RS, Culham JC (2011) To use or to move: goal-set modulates priming when grasping real tools. Exp Brain Res 212:125–142PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Various authors (1999) Commentaries on a new view on grasping. Mot Control 3:272–315Google Scholar
  35. Watt SJ, Bradshaw MF (2000) Binocular cues are important in controlling the grasp but not the reach in natural prehension movements. Neuropsychologica 38:1473–1481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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
  37. Wing AM, Fraser C (1983) The contribution of the thumb to reaching movements. Q J Exp Psychol 35A:297–309Google Scholar
  38. Wing AM, Turton A, Fraser C (1986) Grasp size and accuracy of approach in reaching. J Mot Behav 15:217–236Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Optometry and Visual Science, Henry Wellcome Laboratories for Visual SciencesCity University LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations