Literature DB >> 21938544

An investigation into manual asymmetries in grasp behavior and kinematics during an object manipulation task.

Christian Seegelke1, Charmayne M L Hughes, Thomas Schack.   

Abstract

Manual asymmetries in the control of movements have been investigated in a variety of experimental paradigms. Initial studies demonstrated that the dominant right hand has advantages over the non-dominant left hand in many aspects of motor control. However, more recent studies have shown that the presence and extent of these asymmetries depends on the task context and accuracy demands. Typically, manual asymmetries on a motor planning and motor execution level are examined separately. However, given that recent research has demonstrated that specific task constraints do not influence both levels equally, the purpose of the present experiment was to investigate manual asymmetries in motor planning and execution. To this end, initial grasp behavior (motor planning) and kinematics (motor execution) were examined in thirteen right-handed participants during a unimanual grasping and placing task. We specifically manipulated grasping hand, target location, object end orientation, and object grasp time at the start location. There were three main findings. First, motor planning or movement execution was similar regardless of grasping hand. Second, prospectively planned actions were influenced by target location and the required end orientation of the object. Third, the amount of time spent in an initial posture did not influence initial grasp postures. However, it did alter the movement kinematics during the grasping (approach phase) and placing (transport phase) portion of the task. We posit that grasping and placing movements are comprised of an initial grasp and a transport component, which are differentially influenced by task constraints.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21938544     DOI: 10.1007/s00221-011-2872-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Exp Brain Res        ISSN: 0014-4819            Impact factor:   1.972


  48 in total

1.  Hemispatial differences in visually guided aiming are neither hemispatial nor visual.

Authors:  D P Carey; E G Otto-de Haart
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 3.139

2.  Manual asymmetries in the preparation and control of goal-directed movements.

Authors:  P E Mieschke; D Elliott; W F Helsen; R G Carson; J A Coull
Journal:  Brain Cogn       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 2.310

3.  Accommodation to increased accuracy demands by the right and left hands.

Authors:  J I Todor; J Cisneros
Journal:  J Mot Behav       Date:  1985-09       Impact factor: 1.328

4.  Influence of task complexity on manual asymmetries.

Authors:  Markus Hausmann; Ian J Kirk; Michael C Corballis
Journal:  Cortex       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 4.027

5.  End-state comfort in bimanual object manipulation.

Authors:  Matthias Weigelt; Wilfried Kunde; Wolfgang Prinz
Journal:  Exp Psychol       Date:  2006

6.  Hemisphere differences for components of mental rotation.

Authors:  S C Fischer; J W Pellegrino
Journal:  Brain Cogn       Date:  1988-02       Impact factor: 2.310

7.  Categorization and validation of handedness using latent class analysis.

Authors:  Milan Dragovic
Journal:  Acta Neuropsychiatr       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 3.403

8.  The organization of eye and limb movements during unrestricted reaching to targets in contralateral and ipsilateral visual space.

Authors:  J D Fisk; M A Goodale
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  1985       Impact factor: 1.972

9.  Lateral asymmetries in arm, wrist and finger movements.

Authors:  J I Todor; P M Kyprie; H L Price
Journal:  Cortex       Date:  1982-12       Impact factor: 4.027

10.  Where grasps are made reveals how grasps are planned: generation and recall of motor plans.

Authors:  Rajal G Cohen; David A Rosenbaum
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2004-04-08       Impact factor: 1.972

View more
  12 in total

1.  Hemifield or hemispace: what accounts for the ipsilateral advantages in visually guided aiming?

Authors:  David P Carey; Jonathan Liddle
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2013-08-18       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  Frames of reference in action plan recall: influence of hand and handedness.

Authors:  Christian Seegelke; Charmayne M L Hughes; Kathrin Wunsch; Robrecht van der Wel; Matthias Weigelt
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2015-06-13       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  The influence of reducing intermediate target constraints on grasp posture planning during a three-segment object manipulation task.

Authors:  Christian Seegelke; Charmayne M L Hughes; Andreas Knoblauch; Thomas Schack
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2014-11-05       Impact factor: 1.972

4.  Individual differences in motor planning during a multi-segment object manipulation task.

Authors:  Christian Seegelke; Charmayne M L Hughes; Christoph Schütz; Thomas Schack
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2012-08-11       Impact factor: 1.972

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

Authors:  Kathrin Wunsch; Daniel J Weiss; Thomas Schack; Matthias Weigelt
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2014-07-17

6.  Influence of mechanical load on sequential effects.

Authors:  Christoph Schütz; Thomas Schack
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2013-06-01       Impact factor: 1.972

7.  Observing end-state comfort favorable actions does not modulate action plan recall.

Authors:  Christian Seegelke
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2015-01-29

Review 8.  Manual (a)symmetries in grasp posture planning: a short review.

Authors:  Christian Seegelke; Charmayne Mary Lee Hughes; Thomas Schack
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2014-12-15

9.  Movement plans for posture selection do not transfer across hands.

Authors:  Christoph Schütz; Thomas Schack
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2015-09-11

10.  Simulating my own or others action plans?--Motor representations, not visual representations are recalled in motor memory.

Authors:  Christian Seegelke; Charmayne Mary Lee Hughes; Thomas Schack
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-12-18       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.