Skip to main content

On-line visual control of grasping movements

Abstract

Even though it is recognized that vision plays an important role in grasping movements, it is not yet fully understood how the visual feedback of the hand contributes to the on-line control. Visual feedback could be used to shape the posture of the hand and fingers, to adjust the trajectory of the moving hand, or a combination of both. Here, we used a dynamic perturbation method that altered the position of the visual feedback relative to the actual position of the thumb and index finger to virtually increase or decrease the visually sensed grip aperture. Subjects grasped objects in a virtual 3D environment with haptic feedback and with visual feedback provided by small virtual spheres anchored to the their unseen fingertips. We found that the effects of the visually perturbed grip aperture arose preeminently late in the movement when the hand was in the object’s proximity. The on-line visual feedback assisted both the scaling of the grip aperture to properly conform it to the object’s dimension and the transport of the hand to correctly position the digits on the object’s surface. However, the extent of these compensatory adjustments was contingent on the viewing geometry. The visual control of the actual grip aperture was mainly observed when the final grasp axis orientation was approximately perpendicular to the viewing direction. On the contrary, when the final grasp axis was aligned with the viewing direction, the visual control was predominantly concerned with the guidance of the digit toward the visible final contact point.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

References

  1. Ansuini C, Santello M, Tubaldi F, Massaccesi S, Castiello U (2007) Control of hand shaping in response to object shape perturbation. Exp Brain Res 180:85–96

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bernardi NF, Marino BFM, Maravita A, Castelnuovo G, Tebano R, Bricolo E (2013) Grasping in wonderland: altering the visual size of the body recalibrates the body schema. Exp Brain Res 226:585–594

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bock O, Jüngling S (1999) Reprogramming of grip aperture in a double-step virtual grasping paradigm. Exp Brain Res 125:61–66

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bozzacchi C, Domini F (2015) Lack of depth constancy for grasping movements in both virtual and real environments. J Neurophysiol 114:2242–2248

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bozzacchi C, Volcic R, Domini F (2014) Effect of visual and haptic feedback on grasping movements. J Neurophysiol 112:3189–3196

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bozzacchi C, Volcic R, Domini F (2016) Grasping in absence of feedback: systematic biases endure extensive training. Exp Brain Res 234:255–265

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bradshaw MF, Elliott KM, Watt SJ, Hibbard PB, Davies IRL, Simpson PJ (2004) Binocular cues and the control of prehension. Spat Vis 17:95–110

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Brouwer AM, Franz VH, Gegenfurtner KR (2009) Differences in fixations between grasping and viewing objects. J Vis 9(18):1–24

    Google Scholar 

  9. Carnahan H, Goodale MA, Marteniuk RG (1993) Grasping versus pointing and the differential use of visual feedback. Hum Mov Sci 12:219–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Castiello U, Bennett KMB, Stelmach GE (1993) Reach to grasp: the natural response to perturbation of object size. Exp Brain Res 94:163–178

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Castiello U, Bennett KMB, Chambers H (1998) Reach to grasp: the response to a simultaneous perturbation of object position and size. Exp Brain Res 120:31–40

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Cavina-Pratesi C, Hesse C (2013) Why do the eyes prefer the index finger? Simultaneous recording of eye and hand movements during precision grasping. J Vis 13(5):1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Chen Z, Saunders JA (2015) Online processing of shape information for control of grasping. Exp Brain Res 233:3109–3124

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Churchill A, Hopkins B, Rönnqvist L, Vogt S (2000) Vision of the hand and environmental context in human prehension. Exp Brain Res 134:81–89

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Connolly JD, Goodale MA (1999) The role of visual feedback of hand position in the control of manual prehension. Exp Brain Res 125:281–286

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Cuijpers RH, Smeets JBJ, Brenner E (2004) On the relation between object shape and grasping kinematics. J Neurophysiol 91:2598–2606

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Cuijpers RH, Brenner E, Smeets JBJ (2006) Grasping reveals visual misjudgements of shape. Exp Brain Res 175:32–44

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. de Grave DDJ, Hesse C, Brouwer AM, Franz VH (2008) Fixation locations when grasping partly occluded objects. J Vis 8(5):1–11

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Desanghere L, Marotta JJ (2011) “Graspability” of objects affects gaze patterns during perception and action tasks. Exp Brain Res 212:177–187

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Desmurget M, Prablanc C (1997) Postural control of three-dimensional prehension movements. J Neurophysiol 77:452–464

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Desmurget M, Prablanc C, Arzi M, Rossetti Y, Paulignan Y, Urquizar C (1996) Integrated control of hand transport and orientation during prehension movements. Exp Brain Res 110:265–278

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Domini F, Caudek C (2013) Perception and action without veridical metric reconstruction: an affine approach. In: Dickinson SJ, Pizlo Z (eds) Shape perception in human and computer vision. Springer, London, pp 285–298

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

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

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Eloka O, Franz VH (2011) Effects of object shape on the visual guidance of action. Vision Res 51:925–931

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Fan J, He J, Helms Tillery SI (2006) Control of hand orientation and arm movement during reach and grasp. Exp Brain Res 171:283–296

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Fantoni C, Caudek C, Domini F (2014) Misperception of rigidity from actively generated optic flow. J Vis 14:1–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Fukui T, Inui T (2006) The effect of viewing the moving limb and target object during the early phase of movement on the online control of grasping. Hum Mov Sci 25:349–371

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Gaveau V, Pisella L, Priot AE, Fukui T, Rossetti Y, Pélisson D, Prablanc C (2014) Automatic online control of motor adjustments in reaching and grasping. Neuropsychologia 55:25–40

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Gentilucci M, Chieffi S, Scarpa M, Castiello U (1992) Temporal coupling between transport and grasp components during prehension movements: effects of visual perturbation. Behav Brain Res 47:71–82

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Gentilucci M, Toni I, Chieffi S, Pavesi G (1994) The role of proprioception in the control of prehension movements: a kinematic study in a peripherally deafferented patient and in normal subjects. Exp Brain Res 99:483–500

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Gepshtein S, Banks MS (2003) Viewing geometry determines how vision and haptics combine in size perception. Curr Biol 13:483–488

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Glover S (2004) Separate visual representations in the planning and control of action. Behav Brain Sci 27:3–78

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Glover S, Miall RC, Rushworth MF (2005) Parietal rTMS disrupts the initiation but not the execution of on-line adjustments to a perturbation of object size. J Cogn Neurosci 17:124–136

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Grant S (2015) Gaze-grasp coordination in obstacle avoidance: differences between binocular and monocular viewing. Exp Brain Res 233:3489–3505

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Gréa H, Desmurget M, Prablanc C (2000) Postural invariance in three-dimensional reaching and grasping movements. Exp Brain Res 134:155–162

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Haggard P, Wing A (1997) On the hand transport component of prehensile movements. J Mot Behav 29:282–287

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Hesse C, Franz VH (2009) Corrective processes in grasping after perturbations of object size. J Mot Behav 41:253–273

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Jakobson LS, Goodale MA (1991) Factors affecting higher-order movement planning: a kinematic analysis of human prehension. Exp Brain Res 86:199–208

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Johnston EB (1991) Systematic distortions of shape from stereopsis. Vision Res 31:1351–1360

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Karok S, Newport R (2010) The continuous updating of grasp in response to dynamic changes in object size, hand size and distractor proximity. Neuropsychologia 48:3891–3900

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Kenward MG, Roger JH (1997) Small sample inference for fixed effects from restricted maximum likelihood. Biometrics 53:983–997

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. MacKenzie CL, Marteniuk RG, Dugas C, Liske D, Eickmeier B (1987) Three-dimensional movement trajectories in Fitts’ task: implications for control. Q J Exp Psychol A 39:629–647

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Marino BFM, Stucchi N, Nava E, Haggard P, Maravita A (2010) Distorting the visual size of the hand affects hand pre-shaping during grasping. Exp Brain Res 202:499–505

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. McKee SP, Levi DM, Bowne SF (1990) The imprecision of stereopsis. Vision Res 30:1763–1779

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Melmoth DR, Grant S (2006) Advantages of binocular vision for the control of reaching and grasping. Exp Brain Res 171:371–388

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Melmoth DR, Storoni M, Todd G, Finlay AL, Grant S (2007) Dissociation between vergence and binocular disparity cues in the control of prehension. Exp Brain Res 183:283–298

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Morgan MJ (1989) Vision of solid objects. Nature 339:101–103

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Nicolini C, Fantoni C, Mancuso G, Volcic R, Domini F (2014) A framework for the study of vision in active observers. In: Rogowitz BE, Pappas TN, de Ridder H (eds) Human vision and electronic imaging XIX, Proc SPIE, vol 9014, p 901414

  50. Norman JF, Todd JT, Perotti VJ, Tittle JS (1996) The visual perception of three-dimensional length. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 22:173–186

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Paillard J (1996) Fast and slow feedback loops for the visual correction of spatial errors in a pointing task: a reappraisal. Can J Physiol Pharmacol 74:401–417

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Paulignan Y, Jeannerod M, MacKenzie C, Marteniuk R (1991a) Selective perturbation of visual input during prehension movements: 2. The effects of changing object size. Exp Brain Res 87:407–420

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Paulignan Y, MacKenzie C, Marteniuk R, Jeannerod M (1991b) Selective perturbation of visual input during prehension movements: 1. The effects of changing object position. Exp Brain Res 83:501–512

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Rand MK, Lemay M, Squire LM, Shimansky YP, Stelmach GE (2007) Role of vision in aperture closure control during reach-to-grasp movements. Exp Brain Res 181:447–460

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Richards W (2009) Configuration stereopsis: a new look at the depth-disparity relation. Spat Vis 22:91–103

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Saunders JA, Knill DC (2003) Humans use continuous visual feedback from the hand to control fast reaching movements. Exp Brain Res 152:341–352

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Saunders JA, Knill DC (2004) Visual feedback control of hand movements. J Neurosci 24:3223–3234

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Schettino LF, Adamovich SV, Poizner H (2003) Effects of object shape and visual feedback on hand configuration during grasping. Exp Brain Res 151:158–166

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Schot WD, Brenner E, Smeets JBJ (2010) Robust movement segmentation by combining multiple sources of information. J Neurosci Methods 187:147–155

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Scott SH, Cluff T, Lowrey CR, Takei T (2015) Feedback control during voluntary motor actions. Curr Opin Neurobiol 33:85–94

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Tunik E, Frey SH, Grafton ST (2005) Virtual lesions of the anterior intraparietal area disrupt goal-dependent on-line adjustments of grasp. Nat Neurosci 8:505–511

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. van der Kamp C, Bongers RM, Zaal FTJM (2009) Effects of changing object size during prehension. J Mot Behav 41:427–435

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Verheij R, Brenner E, Smeets JBJ (2014) The influence of target object shape on maximum grip aperture in human grasping movements. Exp Brain Res 232:3569–3578

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Volcic R, Domini F (2014) The visibility of contact points influences grasping movements. Exp Brain Res 232:2997–3005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Volcic R, Fantoni C, Caudek C, Assad JJ, Domini F (2013) Visuomotor adaptation changes stereoscopic depth perception and tactile discrimination. J Neurosci 33:17081–17088

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Voudouris D, Smeets JBJ, Brenner E (2013) Ultra-fast selection of grasping points. J Neurophysiol 110:1484–1489

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Voudouris D, Smeets JBJ, Brenner E (2016) Fixation biases towards the index finger in almost-natural grasping. PLoS One 11(e0146):864

    Google Scholar 

  68. Wallach H, Zuckerman C (1963) The constancy of stereoscopic depth. Am J Psychol 76:404–412

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Watt SJ, Bradshaw MF (2003) The visual control of reaching and grasping: binocular disparity and motion parallax. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 29:404–415

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Wing AM, Fraser C (1983) The contribution of the thumb to reaching movements. Q J Exp Psychol 35:297–309

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Winges SA, Weber DJ, Santello M (2003) The role of vision on hand preshaping during reach to grasp. Exp Brain Res 152:489–498

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert Volcic.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Volcic, R., Domini, F. On-line visual control of grasping movements. Exp Brain Res 234, 2165–2177 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-016-4620-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • Grasping
  • Visual feedback
  • On-line control
  • Perturbation
  • Virtual reality