Effects of stimulus cueing on bimanual grasp posture planning

Hughes C, Seegelke C, Reissig P, Schütz C (2012)
Experimental Brain Research 219(3): 391-401.

Download
Es wurde kein Volltext hochgeladen. Nur Publikationsnachweis!
Zeitschriftenaufsatz | Veröffentlicht | Englisch
Abstract / Bemerkung
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.
Erscheinungsjahr
Zeitschriftentitel
Experimental Brain Research
Band
219
Zeitschriftennummer
3
Seite
391-401
ISSN
eISSN
PUB-ID

Zitieren

Hughes C, Seegelke C, Reissig P, Schütz C. Effects of stimulus cueing on bimanual grasp posture planning. Experimental Brain Research. 2012;219(3):391-401.
Hughes, C., Seegelke, C., Reissig, P., & Schütz, C. (2012). Effects of stimulus cueing on bimanual grasp posture planning. Experimental Brain Research, 219(3), 391-401. doi:10.1007/s00221-012-3100-1
Hughes, C., Seegelke, C., Reissig, P., and Schütz, C. (2012). Effects of stimulus cueing on bimanual grasp posture planning. Experimental Brain Research 219, 391-401.
Hughes, C., et al., 2012. Effects of stimulus cueing on bimanual grasp posture planning. Experimental Brain Research, 219(3), p 391-401.
C. Hughes, et al., “Effects of stimulus cueing on bimanual grasp posture planning”, Experimental Brain Research, vol. 219, 2012, pp. 391-401.
Hughes, C., Seegelke, C., Reissig, P., Schütz, C.: Effects of stimulus cueing on bimanual grasp posture planning. Experimental Brain Research. 219, 391-401 (2012).
Hughes, Charmayne, Seegelke, Christian, Reissig, Paola, and Schütz, Christoph. “Effects of stimulus cueing on bimanual grasp posture planning”. Experimental Brain Research 219.3 (2012): 391-401.

12 Zitationen in Europe PMC

Daten bereitgestellt von Europe PubMed Central.

Frames of reference in action plan recall: influence of hand and handedness.
Seegelke C, Hughes CM, Wunsch K, van der Wel R, Weigelt M., Exp Brain Res 233(10), 2015
PMID: 26070901
Manual (a)symmetries in grasp posture planning: a short review.
Seegelke C, Hughes CM, Schack T., Front Psychol 5(), 2014
PMID: 25566153
Interlimb coordination during a cooperative bimanual object manipulation task.
Hughes CM, Mäueler B, Tepper H, Seegelke C., Laterality 18(6), 2013
PMID: 23439109
Event-related brain potentials for goal-related power grips.
Westerholz J, Schack T, Koester D., PLoS One 8(7), 2013
PMID: 23844211
Perturbations in action goal influence bimanual grasp posture planning.
Hughes CM, Seegelke C., J Mot Behav 45(6), 2013
PMID: 24006878
Individual differences in motor planning during a multi-segment object manipulation task.
Seegelke C, Hughes CM, Schütz C, Schack T., Exp Brain Res 222(1-2), 2012
PMID: 22885998

29 References

Daten bereitgestellt von Europe PubMed Central.

Target selection during bimanual reaching to direct cues is unaffected by the perceptual similarity of the targets.
Albert NB, Weigelt M, Hazeltine E, Ivry RB., J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 33(5), 2007
PMID: 17924810
Bimanual reaches with symbolic cues exhibit errors in target selection.
Blinch J, Cameron BD, Franks IM, Chua R., Exp Brain Res 212(4), 2011
PMID: 21687986
Preparatory strategies in overlapping-task performance.
De Jong R, Sweet JB., Percept Psychophys 55(2), 1994
PMID: 8036096
Moving to directly cued locations abolishes spatial interference during bimanual actions.
Diedrichsen J, Hazeltine E, Kennerley S, Ivry RB., Psychol Sci 12(6), 2001
PMID: 11760137
Bimanual interference associated with the selection of target locations.
Diedrichsen J, Ivry RB, Hazeltine E, Kennerley S, Cohen A., J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 29(1), 2003
PMID: 12669748
Goal-selection and movement-related conflict during bimanual reaching movements.
Diedrichsen J, Grafton S, Albert N, Hazeltine E, Ivry RB., Cereb. Cortex 16(12), 2006
PMID: 16400162
The end-state comfort effect in bimanual grip selection.
Fischman MG, Stodden DF, Lehman DM., Res Q Exerc Sport 74(1), 2003
PMID: 12659472
Spatial topological constraints in a bimanual task.
Franz EA, Zelaznik HN, McCabe G., Acta Psychol (Amst) 77(2), 1991
PMID: 1759589

EA, Psychol Sci 7(), 1996
Structural constraints on bimanual movements.
Heuer H., Psychol Res 55(2), 1993
PMID: 8356202
The influence of movement cues on intermanual interactions.
Heuer H, Klein W., Psychol Res 70(4), 2005
PMID: 16082546
Static and phasic cross-talk effects in discrete bimanual reversal movements.
Heuer H, Kleinsorge T, Spijkers W, Steglich W., J Mot Behav 33(1), 2001
PMID: 11265059
Goal-related planning constraints in bimanual grasping and placing of objects.
Hughes CM, Franz EA., Exp Brain Res 188(4), 2008
PMID: 18443769
Physically coupling two objects in a bimanual task alters kinematics but not end-state comfort.
Hughes CM, Haddad JM, Franz EA, Zelaznik HN, Ryu JH., Exp Brain Res 211(2), 2011
PMID: 21484393
Motor planning in bimanual object manipulation: two plans for two hands?
Janssen L, Craje C, Weigelt M, Steenbergen B., Motor Control 14(2), 2010
PMID: 20484772
Goal congruency without stimulus congruency in bimanual coordination.
Kunde W, Krauss H, Weigelt M., Psychol Res 73(1), 2008
PMID: 18320217

RG, 1980

DE, Psychol Rev 104(), 1997

DA, 1990
From cognition to biomechanics and back: the end-state comfort effect and the middle-is-faster effect.
Rosenbaum DA, van Heugten CM, Caldwell GE., Acta Psychol (Amst) 94(1), 1996
PMID: 8885711

DA, 2006

W, Q J Exp Psychol [A] 48(), 1995

W, Acta Psychol 96(), 1997
Bimanual grasp planning reflects changing rather than fixed constraint dominance.
van der Wel RP, Rosenbaum DA., Exp Brain Res 205(3), 2010
PMID: 20658129
End-state comfort in bimanual object manipulation.
Weigelt M, Kunde W, Prinz W., Exp Psychol 53(2), 2006
PMID: 16909939

Export

Markieren/ Markierung löschen
Markierte Publikationen

Open Data PUB

Web of Science

Dieser Datensatz im Web of Science®

Quellen

PMID: 22562588
PubMed | Europe PMC

Suchen in

Google Scholar