Skip to main content

Collision error avoidance: influence of proportion congruency and sensorimotor memory on open-loop grasp control

Experimental Brain Research volume 198, pages 445–453 (2009)Cite this article

Abstract

Grasping behaviour involves the integration of current and historical knowledge about an object, a process that can be influenced by sensory uncertainty. In the present study, participants simultaneously interacted with a visual cue and a haptic cue before reaching to grasp a target object. The visual cue was either congruent (equal in size to haptic cue and target) or incongruent (larger than haptic cue and target). To enhance sensory uncertainty, we manipulated the proportion of congruent trials to be either 80 or 20%. We compared grasp kinematics and forces between congruent and incongruent trials and between the 20 and 80% proportion congruency groups. We also studied the effects of trial history by comparing the performance of congruent and incongruent trials preceded by either the same or opposite trial type. Proportion congruency did not affect temporal kinematics but did affect maximum grip aperture (MGA) as the 80% proportion congruency group used a greater MGA, regardless of trial type. For grasping forces, an interaction effect showed that the 20% proportion congruency group used a greater peak load force on congruent trials. Incongruent trials that followed congruent trials had decreased movement time, increased MGA and increased grasping forces, relative to those that followed incongruent trials. We interpret the data to suggest that the grasp control system integrates multisensory information using flexible, yet specific criteria regarding task constraints. The prevention of collision error (i.e., an inadequate MGA when contacting the target) may be one guiding principle in the control process.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  • Alais D, Burr D (2004) The ventriloquist effect results from near-optimal bimodal integration. Curr Biol 14:257–262

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Atkins JE, Fiser J, Jacobs RA (2001) Experience-dependent visual cue integration based on consistencies between visual and haptic percepts. Vision Res 41:449–461

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Berthier NE (1996) Learning to reach: a mathematical model. Dev Psychol 32:811–823

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brydges R, Dubrowski A (2006) Sensorimotor integration: prehensile movements in conditions of visuo-proprioceptive conflict. Oral presentation at the Society for Neuroscience, Atlanta, Georgia, USA

  • Cole KJ, Potash M, Peterson C (2008) Failure to disrupt the ‘sensorimotor’ memory for lifting objects with a precision grip. Exp Brain Res 184:157–163

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connor CE, Egeth HE, Yantis S (2004) Visual attention: bottom-up versus top-down. Curr Biol 14:R850–R852

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dodd MD, Pratt J (2007) The effect of previous trial type on inhibition of return. Psychol Res 71:411–417

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dubrowski A, Bock O, Carnahan H, Jungling S (2002) The coordination of hand transport and grasp formation during single- and double-perturbed human prehension movements. Exp Brain Res 145:365–371

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dubrowski A, Proteau L, Carnahan H (2004) Practice effects on the use of visual and haptic cues during grasping. J Mot Behav 36:327–338

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ernst MO, Banks MS (2002) Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashion. Nature 415:429–433

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Flanagan JR, King S, Wolpert DM, Johansson RS (2001) Sensorimotor prediction and memory in object manipulation. Can J Exp Psychol 55:87–95

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fonseca ST, Holt KG, Fetters L, Saltzman E (2004) Dynamic resources used in ambulation by children with spastic hemiplegic cerebral palsy: relationship to kinematics, energetics, and asymmetries. Phys Ther 84:344–354

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gentilucci M, Daprati E, Toni I, Chieffi S, Saetti MC (1995) Unconscious updating of grasp motor program. Exp Brain Res 105:291–303

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon AM, Westling G, Cole KJ, Johansson RJ (1993) Memory representations underlying motor commands used during manipulation of common and novel objects. J Neurophysiol 69:1789–1796

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gratton G, Coles MGH, Donchin E (1992) Optimizing the use of information: strategic control of activation of responses. J Exp Psychol Gen 121:480–506

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Heath M, Maraj A, Godbolt B, Binsted G (2008) Action without awareness: reaching to an object you do not remember seeing. PLoS One 3:e3539

    Google Scholar 

  • Helbig HB, Ernst MO (2007) Knowledge about a common source can promote visual-haptic integration. Perception 36:1523–1533

    Google Scholar 

  • Heron J, Whitaker D, McGraw PV (2004) Sensory uncertainty governs the extent of audio-visual interaction. Vis Res 44:2875–2884

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jeannerod M (1984) The timing of natural prehension movements. J Mot Behav 16:235–254

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jenmalm P, Johansson RS (1997) Visual and somatosensory information about object shape control manipulative fingertip forces. J Neurosci 17:4488–4499

    Google Scholar 

  • Johansson RS, Cole KJ (1994) Grasp stability during manipulative actions. Can J Physiol Pharmacol 72:511–524

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Johansson RS, Westling G (1987) Signals in tactile afferents from the fingers eliciting adaptive motor responses during precision grip. Exp Brain Res 66:141–154

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Logan GD (1988) Toward an instance theory in automatization. Psychol Rev 95:492–527

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 138:219–234

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Notebaert W, Gevers W, Verbruggen F, Liefooghe B (2006) Top-down and bottom-up sequential modulations of congruency effects. Psychon Bull Rev 13:112–117

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nowak DA, Hermsdörfer J (2003) Sensorimotor memory and grip force control: does grip force anticipate a self-produced weight change when drinking with a straw from a cup? Eur J NeuroSci 18:2883–2892

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patchay S, Haggard P, Castiello U (2006) An object-centred reference frame for control of grasping: effects of grasping a distractor object on visuomotor control. Exp Brain Res 170:532–542

    Google Scholar 

  • Posner MI, Snyder C (1975) Facilitation and inhibition in the processing of signals. In: Rabbitt P, Dornic S (eds) Attention and performance V. Academic, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Quaney BM, Rotella DL, Peterson C, Cole KJ (2003) Sensorimotor memory for fingertip forces: evidence for a task-independent motor memory. J Neurosci 23:1981–1986

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rock I, Victor J (1964) Vision and touch: an experimentally created conflict between the two senses. Science 143:594–596

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Säfström D, Edin BB (2004) Task requirements influence sensory integration during grasping in humans. Learn Mem 11:356–363

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salimi I, Frazier W, Reilmann R, Gordon AM (2003) Selective use of visual information signaling objects’ center of mass for anticipatory control of manipulative fingertip forces. Exp Brain Res 150:9–18

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shore DI, Simic N (2005) Integration of visual and tactile stimuli: top-down influences require time. Exp Brain Res 166:509–517

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smeets JB, Brenner E (1999) A new view on grasping. Motor Control 3:237–271

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Whitwell RL, Goodale MA (2009) Updating the programming of a precision grip is a function of recent history of available feedback. Exp Brain Res 194:619–629

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolpert DM, Ghahramani Z (2000) Computational principles of movement neuroscience. Nat Neurosci 3:1212–1217

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Institute of Medical Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Ryan Brydges & Adam Dubrowski

  2. Wilson Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Ryan Brydges & Adam Dubrowski

  3. Lawrence S. Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Adam Dubrowski

Authors
  1. Ryan Brydges
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Adam Dubrowski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adam Dubrowski.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Brydges, R., Dubrowski, A. Collision error avoidance: influence of proportion congruency and sensorimotor memory on open-loop grasp control. Exp Brain Res 198, 445–453 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-009-1939-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-009-1939-6

Keywords

  • Open-loop
  • Sensory uncertainty
  • Grip aperture
  • Incongruity
  • Grasping forces
  • Vision
  • Haptics
  • Premovement