Literature DB >> 22562588

Effects of stimulus cueing on bimanual grasp posture planning.

Charmayne M L Hughes1, Christian Seegelke, Paola Reissig, Christoph Schütz.   

Abstract

The purpose of the present study was to investigate whether difficulties in bimanual grasp posture planning arise from conflicts in response selection. Forty-five participants were assigned to one of three groups (symbolic cueing, semi-symbolic cueing, and direct cueing) and instructed to reach for, grasp, and place two objects on a board in various end-orientations, depending on condition. In general, the tendency to adopt initial grasps that resulted in end-state comfort was significantly higher for the semi-symbolic, than that for the other two groups. There were, however, noticeable individual differences in grip behavior in the symbolic and direct cueing groups. Although the majority of participants performed the task in a similar fashion to the semi-symbolic group, there was a subset of participants (40% in each group) who grasped the two objects using an overhand grip in virtually all trials, regardless of condition. It is hypothesized that the observed individual differences in grasp posture strategy arise from differences in motor planning abilities, or the strategies participants employ in order to comply with task demands. A secondary finding is that the degree of interlimb coupling was larger for congruent, than incongruent, conditions irrespective of stimulus cueing. This finding indicates that the interference in the execution of bimanual grasping and placing tasks arises from interference during the specification of movement parameters specific to planning and execution of bimanual movements, or neuronal cross-talk in efferent pathways, rather than response selection conflicts.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22562588     DOI: 10.1007/s00221-012-3100-1

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


  21 in total

1.  Bimanual interference associated with the selection of target locations.

Authors:  Jörn Diedrichsen; Richard B Ivry; Eliot Hazeltine; Steven Kennerley; Asher Cohen
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 3.332

2.  Bimanual cross-talk during reaching movements is primarily related to response selection, not the specification of motor parameters.

Authors:  Eliot Hazeltine; Joern Diedrichsen; Steven W Kennerley; Richard B Ivry
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2002-11-26

3.  The influence of movement cues on intermanual interactions.

Authors:  Herbert Heuer; Wolfhard Klein
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2005-08-05

4.  End-state comfort in bimanual object manipulation.

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

5.  Spatial topological constraints in a bimanual task.

Authors:  E A Franz; H N Zelaznik; G McCabe
Journal:  Acta Psychol (Amst)       Date:  1991-09

6.  Goal congruency without stimulus congruency in bimanual coordination.

Authors:  Wilfried Kunde; Henrike Krauss; Matthias Weigelt
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2008-03-05

7.  Target selection during bimanual reaching to direct cues is unaffected by the perceptual similarity of the targets.

Authors:  Neil B Albert; Matthias Weigelt; Eliot Hazeltine; Richard B Ivry
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 3.332

8.  From cognition to biomechanics and back: the end-state comfort effect and the middle-is-faster effect.

Authors:  D A Rosenbaum; C M van Heugten; G E Caldwell
Journal:  Acta Psychol (Amst)       Date:  1996-10

Review 9.  Structural constraints on bimanual movements.

Authors:  H Heuer
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  1993

10.  Bimanual grasp planning reflects changing rather than fixed constraint dominance.

Authors:  Robrecht P R D van der Wel; David A Rosenbaum
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2010-07-24       Impact factor: 1.972

View more
  9 in total

1.  The contribution of cognitive, kinematic, and dynamic factors to anticipatory grasp selection.

Authors:  Oliver Herbort; Martin V Butz; Wilfried Kunde
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2014-02-18       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.  Symmetries in action: on the interactive nature of planning constraints for bimanual object manipulation.

Authors:  John M Huhn; Kimberly A Schimpf; Robrecht P van der Wel
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2014-08-27       Impact factor: 1.972

Review 6.  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

7.  Anticipating different grips reduces bimanual end-state comfort: A tradeoff between goal-related and means-related planning processes.

Authors:  Christian Seegelke; Matthias Weigelt
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-01-08       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Event-related brain potentials for goal-related power grips.

Authors:  Jan Westerholz; Thomas Schack; Dirk Koester
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-07-02       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  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

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.