Advertisement

Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 235, Issue 6, pp 1945–1952 | Cite as

The inimitable mouth: task-dependent kinematic differences are independent of terminal precision

  • Jason W. Flindall
  • Claudia L. R. Gonzalez
Research Article

Abstract

Previous studies in our lab have described kinematic difference between grasp-to-eat and grasp-to-place movements, whereby participants produce smaller maximum grip apertures (MGAs) when grasping to bring the item to the mouth than when grasping to bring the item to a container near the mouth. This task difference is limited to right-handed movements, regardless of handedness; it has, therefore, been interpreted as evidence of left-hemisphere lateralization of the grasp-to-eat and other hand-to-mouth grasping movements. However, the difference in end-goal aperture may have accounted for both the kinematic signature (smaller MGAs) and their lateralized expression. Specifically, if the right hand is more sensitive to the precision requirements of secondary movements, it may have produced more precise MGAs for actions whose ultimate goal is the small-aperture mouth rather than a comparatively large aperture container. The current study addresses this question by replacing the previously-used bib with a small drinking glass whose aperture more closely resembles that of the mouth. 25 adult participants reached-to-grasp small cereal items to either (a) eat them, or (b) place them into a small-aperture glass hanging beneath their chin. Results once more showed a lateralised kinematic signature in the form of smaller MGAs for the eat action, demonstrating that the signature is not a result of lateralized sensitivity to a movement’s secondary precision requirements. We discuss these results in terms of their impact on predominant theories regarding visual guidance of grasping movements.

Keywords

Kinematics Grasp-to-eat Hand-to-mouth Precision Laterality 

References

  1. Annett M (1967) The binomial distribution of right, mixed and left handedness. Q J Exp Psychol 19(4):327–333CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Armbrüster C, Spijkers W (2006) Movement planning in prehension: do intended actions influence the initial reach and grasp movement? Motor Control 10(4):311CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Begliomini C, Nelini C, Caria A, Grodd W, Castiello U (2008) Cortical activations in humans grasp-related areas depend on hand used and handedness. PLoS One, 3(10), e3388. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2561002/pdf/pone.0003388.pdf
  4. Bootsma RJ, Marteniuk RG, MacKenzie CL, Zaal F (1994) The speed-accuracy trade-off in manual prehension: effects of movement amplitude, object size, and object width on kinematic characteristics. Exp Brain Res 98:535–541CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Cavill S, Bryden P (2003) Development of handedness: comparison of questionnaire and performance-based measures of preference. Brain Cogn 53(2):149–151CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Chieffi S, Gentilucci M (1993) Coordination between the transport and the grasp components during prehension movements. Exp Brain Res 94(3):471–477CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Cooper S, Doan J, Pellis S, Whishaw I, Brown L (2005) Reducing stability of support structure for a target does not alter reach kinematics among younger adults. Percept Mot Skills 100(3):831–838CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Ferri F, Campione GC, Dalla Volta R, Gianelli C, Gentilucci M (2010) To me or to you? When the self is advantaged. Expl Brain Res 203(4):637–646. http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/44/art%253A10.1007%252Fs00221-010-2271-x.pdf?auth66=1380232878_62cfc7b7035886a80611d26558c83aac&ext=.pdf
  9. Fitts PM (1954) The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. J Exp Psychol 47:381–391CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Flindall JW (2012) Manual asymmetries in the kinematics of reach-to-grasp actions. (Master of Science), University of Lethbridge, LethbridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. Flindall JW, Gonzalez C (2013) On the evolution of handedness: evidence for feeding biases. PLoS One 8(11):e78967CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Flindall JW, Gonzalez C (2014) Eating interrupted: the effect of intent on hand-to-mouth actions. J Neurophysiol 112(8):2019–2025CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Flindall JW, Gonzalez C (2015) Children’s bilateral advantage for grasp-to-eat actions becomes unimanual by age 10 years. J Exp Child Psychol 133:57–71CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Flindall JW, Gonzalez C (2016) The destination defines the journey: an examination of the kinematics of hand-to-mouth movements. J Neurophysiol 116(5):2105–2113CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Flindall JW, Doan JB, Gonzalez C (2014) Manual asymmetries in the kinematics of a reach-to-grasp action. Later Asymmetries Body Brain Cognit 19(4):489–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Flindall JW, Stone K, Gonzalez C (2015) Evidence for right-hand feeding biases in a left-handed population. Later Asymmetries Body Brain Cognit 20(3):287–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Franz VH, Hesse C, Kollath S (2007) Grasping after a delay: more ventral than dorsal? J Vis 7(9):article #157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Goodale M (2011) Transforming vision into action. Vis Res 51(13):1567–1587CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Graziano MS (2006) The organization of behavioral repertoire in motor cortex. Annu Rev Neurosci 29:105–134CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Graziano MS, Taylor CS, Moore T (2002) Complex movements evoked by microstimulation of precentral cortex. Neuron 34(5):841–851. http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0896627302006980/1-s2.0-S0896627302006980-main.pdf?_tid=272b9d8c-2565-11e3-9f31-00000aacb35d&acdnat=1380060393_a319c3c1619b4bd55aebd0a7057b9208
  21. Graziano MS, Aflalo TN, Cooke DF (2005) Arm movements evoked by electrical stimulation in the motor cortex of monkeys. J Neurophysiol 94(6):4209–4223. http://jn.physiology.org/content/94/6/4209.full.pdf
  22. Grosskopf A, Kuhtz-Buschbeck JP (2006) Grasping with the left and right hand: a kinematic study. Exp Brain Res 168:230–240CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Hesse C, Franz VH (2010) Grasping remembered objects: exponential decay of the visual memory. Vis Res 50(24):2642–2650CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Hu Y, Goodale M (2000) Grasping after a delay shifts size-scaling from absolute to relative metrics. J Conitive Neurosci 12(5):856–868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hu Y, Eagleson R, Goodale M (1999) The effects of delay on the kinematics of grasping. Exp Brain Res 126:109–116CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Jakobson L, Goodale M (1991) Factors affecting higher-order movement planning: a kinematic analysis of human prehension. Exp Brain Res 86:199–208CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Jeannerod M (1984) The timing of natural prehension movements. J Mot Behav 16(3):235–254CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Jeannerod M (1986) The formation of finger grip during prehension. a cortically mediated visuomotor pattern. Behav Brain Res 19(2):99–116. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3964409
  29. Kuhtz-Buschbeck J, Stolze H, Jöhnk K, Boczek-Funcke A, Illert M (1998) Development of prehension movements in children: a kinematic study. Exp Brain Res 122(4):424–432CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Marteniuk RG, MacKenzie CL, Jeannerod M, Athenes S, Dugas C (1987) Constraints on human arm movement trajectories. Can J Psychol Revue Canadienne de Psychologie 41(3):365. http://graphics.tx.ovid.com/ovftpdfs/FPDDNCGCOAIDPG00/fs046/ovft/live/gv023/00002784/00002784-198709000-00007.pdf
  31. Marteniuk RG, Leavitt JL, MacKenzie CL, Athenes S (1990) Functional relationships between grasp and transport components in a prehension task. Hum Mov Sci 9(2):149–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Maruff P, Wilson P, De Fazio J, Cerritelli B, Hedt A, Currie J (1999) Asymmetries between dominant and non-dominanthands in real and imagined motor task performance. Neuropsychologia 37(3):379–384CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Milner A, Goodale M (2008) Two visual systems re-viewed. Neuropsychologia 46(3):774–785CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Oldfield RC (1971) The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia 9:97–113CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Olivier I, Hay L, Bard C, Fleury M (2007) Age-related differences in the reaching and grasping coordination in children: unimanual and bimanual tasks. Exp Brain Res 179(1):17–27CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Sartori L, Straulino E, Castiello U (2011) How objects are grasped: the interplay between affordances and end-goals. PLoS One 6(9):e25203. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3182194/pdf/pone.0025203.pdf
  37. Stone K, Bryant D, Gonzalez C (2013) Hand use for grasping in a bimanual task: evidence for different roles? Exp Brain Res 224(3):455–467. http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/829/art%253A10.1007%252Fs00221-012-3325-z.pdf?auth66=1395419957_da154861cf315bb4c78850b961d8607c&ext=.pdf
  38. Tretriluxana J, Gordon J, Winstein CJ (2008) Manual asymmetries in grasp pre-shaping and transport-grasp coordination. Exp Brain Res 188:305–315CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Whishaw IQ, Suchowersky O, Davis L, Sarna J, Metz GA, Pellis SM (2002) Impairment of pronation, supination, and body co-ordination in reach-to-grasp tasks in human Parkinson’s disease (PD) reveals homology to deficits in animal models. Behav Brain Res 133(2):165–176. http://ac.els-cdn.com/S016643280100479X/1-s2.0-S016643280100479X-main.pdf?_tid=8a631192-25ff-11e3-8adb-00000aab0f27&acdnat=1380126702_6e11baa1efb8f74322d9d9b531630ff1

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Brain in Action Lab, Department of KinesiologyUniversity of LethbridgeLethbridgeCanada

Personalised recommendations