Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 15, Issue 6, pp 1100–1104 | Cite as

Reaching while walking: Reaching distance costs more than walking distance

  • David A. RosenbaumEmail author
Brief Reports


Surprisingly little is known about how people plan and control everyday physical actions, such as walking along and picking up objects. In order to explore this topic, we conducted an experiment in which university students were asked to pick up a common object (a child’s beach bucket) that stood on a table several meters from the participant’s start position. The bucket stood either on the left side, in the middle, or on the right side of the table and, depending on instructions, was to be carried to a farther target whose horizontal position was also varied. The questions were which side of the table the participant would walk along when picking up the bucket and which hand the participant would use to pick up and carry the bucket. Participants, most of whom were righthanded, preferred to walk along the left side of the table and to pick up the bucket with the right hand, although they departed from that preference when the reaching distance across the table was uncomfortable or if the target was too far to the right. The data were well fit with a mathematical model that included a right-hand bias and an estimate of functional distance that expressed the cost of reaching over some distance as approximately twice the cost of walking over the same distance.


Experimental Brain Research Target Height Leftward Bias Functional Distance Grasp Height 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bryden, P. J., & Roy, E. A. (2006). Preferential reaching across regions of hemispace in adults and children. Developmental Psychobiology, 48, 121–136.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Carnahan, H., McFadyen, B. J., Cockell, D. L., & Halverson, A. H. (1996). The combined control of locomotion and prehension. Neuroscience Research Communications, 19, 91–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Claxton, L. J., Keen, R., & McCarty, M. E. (2003). Evidence of motor planning in infant reaching behavior. Psychological Science, 14, 354–356.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Cockell, D. L., Carnahan, H., & McFadyen, B. J. (1995). A preliminary analysis of the coordination of reaching, grasping, and walking. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 81, 515–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cohen, R. G., & Rosenbaum, D. A. (2004). Where objects are grasped reveals how grasps are planned: Generation and recall of motor plans. Experimental Brain Research, 157, 486–495.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Doyen, A.-L., & Carlier, M. (2002). Measuring handedness: A validation study of Bishop’s reaching card test. Laterality, 7, 115–130.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Georgopoulos, A. P., & Grillner, S. (1989). Visuomotor coordination in reaching and locomotion. Science, 245, 1209–1210.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Goodnow, J. J., & Levine, R. A. (1973). “The grammar of action”: Sequence and syntax in children’s copying. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 82–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Haggard, P. (1998). Planning of action sequences. Acta Psychologica, 99, 201–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Marteniuk, R. G., & Bertram, C. P. (2001). Contributions of gait and trunk movement to prehension: Perspectives from world- and bodycentered coordinates. Motor Control, 5, 151–164.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Marteniuk, R. G., Leavitt, J. L., MacKenzie, C. L., & Athenes, S. (1990). Functional relationships between grasp and transport components in a prehension task. Human Movement Science, 9, 149–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Oldfield, R. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9, 97–113.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Rosenbaum, D. A., Cohen, R. G., Meulenbroek, R. G., & Vaughan, J. (2006). Plans for grasping objects. In M. Latash & F. Lestienne (Eds.), Motor control and learning over the lifespan (pp. 9–25). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Rosenbaum, D. A., Halloran, E. S., & Cohen, R. G. (2006). Grasping movement plans. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 918–922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Todorov, E. (2004). Optimality principles in sensorimotor control. Nature Neuroscience, 7, 907–915.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. van der Wel, R. P., & Rosenbaum, D. A. (2007). Coordination of locomotion and prehension. Experimental Brain Research, 176, 281–287.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Weigelt, M., Cohen, R. G., & Rosenbaum, D. A. (2007). Returning home: Locations rather than movements are recalled in human object manipulation. Experimental Brain Research, 149, 191–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Weir, P. L., MacDonald, J. R., Mallat, B. J., Leavitt, J. L., & Roy, E. A. (1998). Age-related differences in prehension: The influence of task goals. Journal of Motor Behavior, 30, 79–89.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyPennsylvania State UniversityUniversity Park

Personalised recommendations