Advertisement

Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 233, Issue 8, pp 2383–2390 | Cite as

Infants’ prospective control during object manipulation in an uncertain environment

  • Janna M. GottwaldEmail author
  • Gustaf Gredebäck
Research Article

Abstract

This study investigates how infants use visual and sensorimotor information to prospectively control their actions. We gave 14-month-olds two objects of different weight and observed how high they were lifted, using a Qualisys Motion Capture System. In one condition, the two objects were visually distinct (different color condition) in another they were visually identical (same color condition). Lifting amplitudes of the first movement unit were analyzed in order to assess prospective control. Results demonstrate that infants lifted a light object higher than a heavy object, especially when vision could be used to assess weight (different color condition). When being confronted with two visually identical objects of different weight (same color condition), infants showed a different lifting pattern than what could be observed in the different color condition, expressed by a significant interaction effect between object weight and color condition on lifting amplitude. These results indicate that (a) visual information about object weight can be used to prospectively control lifting actions and that (b) infants are able to prospectively control their lifting actions even without visual information about object weight. We argue that infants, in the absence of reliable visual information about object weight, heighten their dependence on non-visual information (tactile, sensorimotor memory) in order to estimate weight and pre-adjust their lifting actions in a prospective manner.

Keywords

Prospective control Object manipulation Sensorimotor Action Motor development Motor control 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration under Grant Agreement No. 289404 and from ERC-StG CACTUS 312292. We thank Claes von Hofsten for fruitful theoretical discussions, Torsten Leitner for valuable input and discussions on the physical background of force calculation, Estefanía Domínguez Martínez for helpful support in MATLAB programing, Mattias Stridbeck for illustrations, Marcus Lindskog for valuable input on probability calculations, Martyna Galazka for proofreading, and last but not least the members of the Uppsala Child and Baby Lab for constructive feedback on a previous version of the manuscript.

Conflict of interest

The authors declared that they had no conflicts of interest with respect to their authorship or the publication of this article.

Ethical standard

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the regional ethics committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Abravanel E (1973) Division of labor between eye and hand when perceiving shape. Neuropsychology 11:207–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y (1995) Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc Ser B (Methodological) 57:289–300Google Scholar
  3. Buckingham G, Goodale MA (2010a) Lifting without seeing: the role of vision in perceiving and acting upon the size weight illusion. Plos One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0009709 PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Buckingham G, Goodale MA (2010b) The influence of competing perceptual and motor priors in the context of the size-weight illusion. Exp Brain Res 205:283–288PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buckingham G, Cant JS, Goodale MA (2009) Living an a material world: how visual cues to material properties affect the way that we lift objects and perceive their weight. J Neurophysiol 102:3111–3118PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Claxton LJ, Keen R, McCarty ME (2003) Evidence of motor planning in infant reaching behavior. Psychol Sci 14:354–356PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cole KJ (2008) Lifting a familiar object: visual size analysis, not memory for object weight, scales lift force. Exp Brain Res 188:551–557PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Forssberg H, Kinoshita H, Eliasson AC, Johansson RS, Westling G, Gordon AM (1992) Development of human precision grip. Anticipatory control of isometric forces targeted for object’s weight. Exp Brain Res 90:393–398PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gordon AM, Forssberg H, Johansson RS, Westling G (1991) Visual size cues in the programming of manipulative forces during precision grip. Exp Brain Res 83:477–482PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Gordon AM, Westling G, Cole KJ, Johansson RS (1993) Memory representations underlying motor commands used during manipulation of common and novel objects. J Neurophysiol 69:1790–1796Google Scholar
  11. Johansson RS, Flanagan JR (2009) Coding and use of tactile signals from the fingertips in object manipulation tasks. Nat Rev Neurosci 10:345–359PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Johansson RS, Westling G (1984) Roles of glabrous skin receptors and sensorimotor memory in automatic control of precision grip when lifting rougher or more slippery objects. Exp Brain Res 56:550–564PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Johansson RS, Westling G (1988) Coordinated isometric muscle commands adequately and erroneously programmed for the weight during lifting task with precision grip. Exp Brain Res 71:59–71PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Klatzky RL, Lederman S, Reed C (1987) There’s more to touch than meets the eye: the-salience of object attributes for hap tics with and without vision. J Exp Psychol: Gen 116:356–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ledouit S, Casanova R, Zaal FTJM, Bootsma RJ (2013) Prospective control in catching: the persistent angle-of-approach effect in lateral interception. Plos One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0080827 PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Marshall PJ, Saby JN, Meltzoff A (2013) Infant brain responses to object weight: exploring goal-directed actions and self-experience. Infancy 18:942–960CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mash C (2007) Object representation in infants’ coordination of manipulative force. Infancy 12:329–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mash C, Bornstein MH, Banerjee A (2014) Development of object control in the first year: emerging category discrimination and generalization in infants’ adaptive selection of action. Dev Psychol 50:325–335PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mawase F, Karniel A (2010) Evidence for predictive control in lifting series of virtual objects. Exp Brain Res 203:447–452PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Morrongiello BA, Humphrey GK, Timney B, Choi J, Rocca PT (1994) Tactual object exploration and recognition in blind and sighted children. Perception 23:833–848PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nowak DA, Glasauer S, Hermsdöfer J (2013) Force control in object manipulation—a model for the study of sensorimotor control strategies. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 37:1578–1586PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nyström P (2008) The infant mirror neuron system studied with high density EEG. Soc Neurosci 3:334–347PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. von Hofsten C (1991) Structural of early reaching movements. A longitudinal study. J Mot Behav 23:280–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. von Hofsten C (1993) Prospective control: a basic aspect of action development. Hum Dev 36:253–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. von Hofsten C (2004) An action perspective on motor development. Trends Cognit Sci 8:266–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Uppsala Child and Baby Lab, Department of PsychologyUppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations