Psychological Research

, Volume 79, Issue 4, pp 669–677 | Cite as

Second-order motor planning in children: insights from a cup-manipulation-task

  • Kathrin WunschEmail author
  • Daniel J. Weiss
  • Thomas Schack
  • Matthias Weigelt
Original Article


The present study examined the development of anticipatory motor planning in an object manipulation task that has been used to successfully demonstrate motor planning in non-human primates (Weiss et al. in Psychol Sci 18:1063–1068, 2007). Seventy-five participants from four different age groups participated in a cup-manipulation task. One group was preschool children (average age of 5.1 years), two groups were primary school children (7.7 and 9.8 years old respectively) and the final group was comprised of adults. The experimental task entailed reaching for a plastic cup that was vertically suspended in an apparatus in either upright or inverted orientation, removing the cup by its stem and then retrieving a small toy from the inside of the cup. When the cup was inverted in the apparatus, evidence for anticipatory motor planning could be achieved by initially gripping the stem using an inverted (thumb-down) grip posture. We found that when the cup was in upright orientation, all participants reached for the cup using an upright grip (i.e. thumb-up posture). However, when the cup was inverted in the apparatus, only adults consistently used an inverted grasping posture, though the percentage of inverted grips among participants did increase with age. These results suggest a protracted development for anticipatory motor planning abilities in children. Surprisingly, the performance of adults on this task more closely resembles the performance of several nonhuman primate species as opposed to children even at approximately 10 years of age. We discuss how morphological constraints on flexibility may help account for these findings.


Preschool Child Motor Planning Inverted Orientation Upright Orientation Comfort Rating 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This research was supported by NIH Grant R01 HD067250 (D. J. Weiss) and the German Research Foundation Grant DFG EXC 277 “Cognitive Interaction Technology” (CITEC) (M. Weigelt and T. Schack). The authors thank Roland Pfister for his support on the statistics, the two anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions on the manuscript, as well as the editor, Wilfried Kunde, for carefully handling the manuscript.


  1. Adalbjornsson, C. F., Fischman, M. G., & Rudisill, M. E. (2008). The end-state comfort effect in young children. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 79(1), 36–41. doi: 10.5641/193250308X13086753542816.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chapman, K. M., Weiss, D. J., & Rosenbaum, D. A. (2010). Evolutionary roots of motor planning: the end-state comfort effect in lemurs. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 124(2), 229–232. doi: 10.1037/a0018025.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Claxton, L. J., Keen, R., & McCarty, M. E. (2003). Evidence of motor planning in infant reaching behavior. Psychological Science, 14, 354–356. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.24421.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Claxton, L. J., McCarty, M. E., & Keen, R. (2009). Self-directed action affects planning in tool-use tasks with toddlers. Infant Behavior and Development, 32, 230–233. doi: 10.1016/j.infbeh.2008.12.004.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Costello, M. E., & Fragaszy, D. M. (1988). Prehension in Cebus and Saimiri: I. grip type and hand preference. American Journal of Primatology, 15, 235–245. doi: 10.1002/ajp.1350150306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fischman, M. G. (1997). End-state comfort in object manipulation [Abstract]. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 68((Suppl)), A-60.Google Scholar
  7. Frey, S. H., & Povinelli, D. J. (2012). Comparative investigations of manual action representations: evidence that chimpanzees represent the cost of potential future actions involving tools. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of Biological Sciences, 367(1585), 48–58. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2011.0189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Johnson, S. H. (2000). Thinking ahead: the case for motor imagery in prospective judgements of prehension. Cognition, 74, 33–70. doi: 10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00063-3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jongbloed-Pereboom, M., Nijhuis-Van der Sanden, M. W. G., Saraber-Schiphorst, N., Crajé, C., & Steenbergen, B. (2013). Anticipatory action planning increases from 3 to 10 years of age in typically developing children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 114, 295–305. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2012.08.008.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jovanovic, B., & Schwarzer, G. (2011). Learning to grasp efficiently: the development of motor planning and the role of observational learning. Vision Research, 51, 945–954. doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2010.12.003.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Knudsen, B., Henning, A., Wunsch, K., Weigelt, M., & Aschersleben, G. (2012). The end-state comfort effect in 3- to 8-year-old children in two object manipulation tasks. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 1–10. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. MacNeilage, P. F. (1991). The “postural origins” theory of primate neurobiological asymmetries. In N. A. Krasnegor, D. M. Rumbaugh, R. L. Schiefelbusch, & M. Studdert-Kennedy (Eds.), Biological and behavioral determinants of language development (pp. 165–188). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  13. Manoel, E. J., & Moreira, C. R. P. (2005). Planning manipulative hand movements: do young children show the end-state comfort effect? Journal of Human Movement Studies, 49, 93–114.Google Scholar
  14. McCarty, M. E., Clifton, R. K., & Collard, R. R. (1999). Problem solving in infancy: the emergence of an action plan. Journal of Developmental Psychology, 35, 1091–1101. doi: 10.1037//0012-1649.35.4.1091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Napier, J. R. (1960). Studies of the hands of living primates. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 134(4), 647–657. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7998.1960.tb05606.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rosenbaum, D. A., Chapman, K. M., Weigelt, M., Weiss, D. J., & Van der Wel, R. (2012). Cognition, action, and object manipulation. Psychonomic Bulletin, 138(5), 924–946. doi: 10.1037/a0027839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rosenbaum, D. A., Marchak, F., Barnes, H. J., Vaughan, J., Slotta, J. D., & Jorgensen, M. J. (1990). Constraints for action selection: overhand versus underhand grip. In M. Jeannerod (Ed.), Attention and performance XIII (pp. 321–342). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  18. Rosenbaum, D. A., Vaughan, J., Jorgensen, M. J., Barnes, H. H., & Stewart, E. (1993). Plans for object manipulation. In D. E. Meyer & S. Kornblum (Eds.), Attention and performance XIV: Synergies in experimental psychology, artificial intelligence, and cognitive neuroscience. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Scharoun, S. M., & Bryden, P. J. (2013). The development of end- and beginning-state comfort in a cup manipulation task. Journal of Developmental Psychobiology,. doi: 10.1002/dev.21108.Google Scholar
  20. Seegelke, C., Hughes, C. M. L., & Schack, T. (2011). An investigation into manual asymmetries in grasp behavior and kinematics during and object manipulation task. Experimental Brain Research, 215, 65–75. doi: 10.1007/s00221-011-2872-z.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Spinozzi, G., Truppa, V., & Laganà, T. (2004). Grasping behavior in tufted capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella): grip types and manual laterality for picking up a small food item. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 125, 30–41. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.10362.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Stöckel, T., Hughes, C. M. L., & Schack, T. (2012). Representation of grasp postures and anticipatory motor planning in children. Psychological Research, 76(6), 768–776. doi: 10.1007/s00426-011-0387-7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Thibaut, J. P., & Touissant, L. (2010). Developing motor planning over ages. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 105(1–2), 116–129. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2009.10.003.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Weigelt, M., & Schack, T. (2010). The development of end-state comfort planning in preschool children. Experimental Psychology, 57(1), 1–7. doi: 10.1027/1618-3169/a000059.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Weiss, D. J., Wark, J. D., & Rosenbaum, D. A. (2007). Monkey see, monkey plan, monkey do: the end-state comfort effect in cotton-top tamarins. Psychological Science, 18, 1063–1068. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.02026.x.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wilmut, K., & Bryne, M. (2014). Influences of grasp selection in typically developing children. Acta Psychologica, 148, 181–187. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.02.005.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wolpert, D. M., & Kawato, M. (1998). Multiple paired forward and inverse models for motor control. Neural Networks, 11(7–8), 1317–1329.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wunsch, K., Henning, A., Aschersleben, G., & Weigelt, M. (2013). A systematic review of the end-state comfort effect in normally developing children and in children with developmental disorders. Journal of Motor Learning and Development, 1(3), 59–76.Google Scholar
  29. Zander, S. L., Weiss, D. J., & Judge, P. G. (2013). The interface between morphology and action planning: a comparison of two species of New World monkeys. Animal Behaviour, 86(6), 1251–1258. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2013.09.028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kathrin Wunsch
    • 1
    Email author
  • Daniel J. Weiss
    • 2
  • Thomas Schack
    • 3
  • Matthias Weigelt
    • 1
  1. 1.Sportpsychology, Department of Sport and HealthUniversity of PaderbornPaderbornGermany
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyPennsylvania State UniversityState ParkUSA
  3. 3.Institute of Sport ScienceBielefeld UniversityBielefeldGermany

Personalised recommendations