Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 225, Issue 2, pp 261–275 | Cite as

To eat or not to eat? Kinematics and muscle activity of reach-to-grasp movements are influenced by the action goal, but observers do not detect these differences

  • Katherine R. Naish
  • Arran T. Reader
  • Carmel Houston-Price
  • Andrew J. Bremner
  • Nicholas P. Holmes
Research Article

Abstract

Recent evidence suggests that the mirror neuron system responds to the goals of actions, even when the end of the movement is hidden from view. To investigate whether this predictive ability might be based on the detection of early differences between actions with different outcomes, we used electromyography (EMG) and motion tracking to assess whether two actions with different goals (grasp to eat and grasp to place) differed from each other in their initial reaching phases. In a second experiment, we then tested whether observers could detect early differences and predict the outcome of these movements, based on seeing only part of the actions. Experiment 1 revealed early kinematic differences between the two movements, with grasp-to-eat movements characterised by an earlier peak acceleration, and different grasp position, compared to grasp-to-place movements. There were also significant differences in forearm muscle activity in the reaching phase of the two actions. The behavioural data arising from Experiments 2a and 2b indicated that observers are not able to predict whether an object is going to be brought to the mouth or placed until after the grasp has been completed. This suggests that the early kinematic differences are either not visible to observers, or that they are not used to predict the end-goals of actions. These data are discussed in the context of the mirror neuron system.

Keywords

Reach to grasp Kinematics Electromyography Action prediction Movement planning Pre-grasp 

Supplementary material

221_2012_3367_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (101 kb)
Online Resource 1. Component loadings of temporal kinematic variables for the pre-grasp movement. Supplementary material 1 (PDF 100 kb)
221_2012_3367_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (95 kb)
Online Resource 2. Component loadings of spatial kinematic variables for the pre-grasp movement. Supplementary material 2 (PDF 94 kb)
221_2012_3367_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (113 kb)
Online Resource 3. Component loadings of all kinematic variables for the (post-) grasp-to-place movement. Supplementary material 3 (PDF 113 kb)
221_2012_3367_MOESM4_ESM.pdf (110 kb)
Online Resource 4. Component loadings of all kinematic variables for the (post-) grasp-to-eat movement. Supplementary material 4 (PDF 109 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. Armbrüster C, Spijkers W (2006) Movement planning in prehension: do intended actions influence the initial reach and grasp movement? Mot Control 10(4):311–329Google Scholar
  3. Begliomini C, Caria A, Grodd W, Castiello U (2007) Comparing natural and constrained movements: new insights into the visuomotor control of grasping. PLoS ONE 2(10):e1108. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0001108 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blake R, Shiffrar M (2007) Perception of human motion. Ann Rev Psychol 58:47–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brainard DH (1997) The psychophysics toolbox. Spat Vis 10(4):433–436PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bremner AJ, Cowie D (in press) Developmental origins of the hand in the mind, and the role of the hands in the development of the mind. In: Radman Z (ed) The hand: Organ of the mind. Cambridge: MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  7. Cheng Y, Meltzoff AN, Decety J (2007) Motivation modulates the activity of the human mirror-neuron system. Cereb Cortex 17(8):1979–1986PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cohen RG, Rosenbaum DA (2004) Where grasps are made reveals how grasps are planned: generation and recall of motor plans. Exp Brain Res 157(4):486–495PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Costello AB, Osborne JW (2005) Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis 10(7): 1–9Google Scholar
  10. de Vaus DA (2002) Analyzing social science data. Sage Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Desmurget M, Grafton ST (2000) Forward modeling allows feedback control for fast reaching movements. Trends Cogn Sci 4(11):423–431PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. di Pellegrino G, Fadiga L, Fogassi L, Gallese V, Rizzolatti G (1992) Understanding motor events: a neurophysiological study. Exp Brain Res 91(1):176–180PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eastough D, Edwards MG (2007) Movement kinematics in prehension are affected by grasping objects of different mass. Exp Brain Res 176(1):193–198PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fadiga L, Fogassi L, Pavesi G, Rizzolatti G (1995) Motor facilitation during action observation: a magnetic stimulation study. J Neurophysiol 73(6):2608–2611PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Ferrari PF, Gallese V, Rizzolatti G, Fogassi L (2003) Mirror neurons responding to the observation of ingestive and communicative mouth actions in the monkey ventral premotor cortex. Eur J Neurosci 17(8):1703–1714PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fikes TG, Klatzky RL, Lederman SJ (1994) Effects of object texture on precontact movement time in human prehension. J Mot Behav 26(4):325–332PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Flatters IJ, Otten L, Witvliet A, Henson B, Raymond JH, Culmer P, Bingham GP, Wilkie RM, Mon-Williams M (2012) Predicting the effect of surface texture on the qualitative form of prehension. PLoS ONE 7(3):e32770. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0032770 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fogassi L, Ferrari PF, Gesierich B, Rozzi S, Chersi F, Rizzolatti G (2005) Parietal lobe: from action organization to intention understanding. Science 308:662–667PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Iacoboni M, Woods RP, Brass M, Bekkering H, Mazziotta JC, Rizzolatti G (1999) Cortical mechanisms of human imitation. Science 286(5449):2526–2528PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Manera V, Becchio C, Cavallo A, Sartori L, Castiello U (2011) Cooperation or competition? Discriminating between social intentions by observing prehensile movements. Exp Brain Res 211(3–4):547–556PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Marteniuk RG, Mackenzie CL, Jeannerod M, Athenes S, Dugas C (1987) Constraints on human arm movement trajectories. Can J Psychol 41(3):365–378PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mon-Williams M, Bingham GP (2011) Discovering affordances that determine the spatial structure of reach-to-grasp movements. Exp Brain Res 211:145–160PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pryde KM, Roy EA, Campbell K (1998) Prehension in children and adults: the effects of object size. Hum Mov Sci 17:743–752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rizzolatti G, Craighero L (2004) The mirror-neuron system. Ann Rev Neurosci 27:169–192PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rochat P (1993) Hand-mouth coordination in the newborn: Morphology, determinants, and early development of a basic act. In: Savelsbergh GJP (ed) The development of coordination in infancy. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 265–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Runeson S, Frykholm G (1983) Kinematic specifications of dynamics as an informational basis for person-and-action perception: Expectation, gender recognition, and deceptive intention 112: 585–615Google Scholar
  27. Sartori L, Cavallo A, Bucchioni G, Castiello U (2011a) Corticospinal excitability is specifically modulated by the social dimension of observed actions. Exp Brain Res 211(3–4):557–568PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sartori L, Straulino E, Castiello U (2011b) How objects are grasped: the interplay between affordances and end-goals. PLoS ONE 6(9):e25203. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0025203 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schuboe A, Maldonado A, Stork S, Beetz M (2008) Subsequent actions influence motor control parameters of a current grasping action. In: The 17th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, 2008. RO-MAN 2008, pp 389–394Google Scholar
  30. Sebanz N, Shiffrar M (2007) Bluffing bodies: inferring intentions from actions. Perception 36(Suppl):176Google Scholar
  31. Southgate V, Johnson MH, El Karoui I, Csibra G (2010) Motor system activation reveals infants’ on-line prediction of others’ goals. Psychol Sci 21(3):355–359PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stapel JC, Hunnius S, Bekkering H (2012) Online prediction of others’ actions: the contribution of the target object, action context and movement kinematics. Psychol Res 76:434–445PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Stevens J (2002) Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum, MahwahGoogle Scholar
  34. Umiltà MA, Kohler E, Gallese V, Fogassi L, Fadiga L, Keysers C, Rizzolatti G (2001) I know what you are doing. A neurophysiological study. Neuron 31(1):155–165PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Villiger M, Chandrasekharan S, Welsh TN (2011) Activity of human motor system during action observation is modulated by object presence. Exp Brain Res 209(1):85–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Watson AB, Pelli DG (1983) QUEST: a bayesian adaptive psychometric method. Percept Psychophys 33(2):113–120PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katherine R. Naish
    • 1
    • 2
  • Arran T. Reader
    • 1
  • Carmel Houston-Price
    • 1
  • Andrew J. Bremner
    • 3
  • Nicholas P. Holmes
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Psychology and Clinical Language SciencesUniversity of ReadingReadingUK
  2. 2.Centre for Integrative Neuroscience and NeurodynamicsUniversity of ReadingReadingUK
  3. 3.Department of Psychology, GoldsmithsUniversity of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations