The Influence of Initial and Final Precision on Motor Planning: Individual Differences in End-State Comfort During Unimanual Grasping and Placing

Hughes C, Seegelke C, Schack T (2012)
Journal of Motor Behavior 44(3): 195-201.

Journal Article | Published | English

No fulltext has been uploaded

Abstract
People will often grasp an object with an uncomfortable initial grasp if this affords more comfort at the end of the movement. The authors' primary objective was to examine whether grasp planning is influenced by precision demands at the start and end of the movement. Twenty right-handed individuals performed a unimanual grasping and placing task in which the precision requirements at the start and end of the movement were either identical (low initial and final precision, high initial and final precision) or different (low initial and high final precision, high initial and low final precision). The major finding to emerge was the presence of individual differences. 50% of participants changed their initial grasps based on the precision requirements of the task, and were more likely to satisfy end-state comfort when the final precision requirements were high than when they were low. In contrast, 50% of participants generally planned their movements to satisfy end-state comfort (regardless of precision requirements). The authors hypothesized that the former group of participants was sensitive to the precision demands of the task, and participants planned their grips in accordance with these demands. In contrast, the latter group of participants reduced the cognitive costs by using previously successful grasp plans.
Publishing Year
ISSN
eISSN
PUB-ID

Cite this

Hughes C, Seegelke C, Schack T. The Influence of Initial and Final Precision on Motor Planning: Individual Differences in End-State Comfort During Unimanual Grasping and Placing. Journal of Motor Behavior. 2012;44(3):195-201.
Hughes, C., Seegelke, C., & Schack, T. (2012). The Influence of Initial and Final Precision on Motor Planning: Individual Differences in End-State Comfort During Unimanual Grasping and Placing. Journal of Motor Behavior, 44(3), 195-201.
Hughes, C., Seegelke, C., and Schack, T. (2012). The Influence of Initial and Final Precision on Motor Planning: Individual Differences in End-State Comfort During Unimanual Grasping and Placing. Journal of Motor Behavior 44, 195-201.
Hughes, C., Seegelke, C., & Schack, T., 2012. The Influence of Initial and Final Precision on Motor Planning: Individual Differences in End-State Comfort During Unimanual Grasping and Placing. Journal of Motor Behavior, 44(3), p 195-201.
C. Hughes, C. Seegelke, and T. Schack, “The Influence of Initial and Final Precision on Motor Planning: Individual Differences in End-State Comfort During Unimanual Grasping and Placing”, Journal of Motor Behavior, vol. 44, 2012, pp. 195-201.
Hughes, C., Seegelke, C., Schack, T.: The Influence of Initial and Final Precision on Motor Planning: Individual Differences in End-State Comfort During Unimanual Grasping and Placing. Journal of Motor Behavior. 44, 195-201 (2012).
Hughes, Charmayne, Seegelke, Christian, and Schack, Thomas. “The Influence of Initial and Final Precision on Motor Planning: Individual Differences in End-State Comfort During Unimanual Grasping and Placing”. Journal of Motor Behavior 44.3 (2012): 195-201.
This data publication is cited in the following publications:
This publication cites the following data publications:

9 Citations in Europe PMC

Data provided by 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
Optimal control in the critical phase of movement: a functional approach to motor planning processes.
Kunzell S, Augste C, Hering M, Maier S, Meinzinger AM, Sießmeir D., Acta Psychol (Amst) 143(3), 2013
PMID: 23727597
Individual differences in motor planning during a multi-segment object manipulation task.
Seegelke C, Hughes CM, Schutz C, Schack T., Exp Brain Res 222(1-2), 2012
PMID: 22885998

18 References

Data provided by Europe PubMed Central.


AUTHOR UNKNOWN, 0
Individual differences in extraversion and dopamine genetics predict neural reward responses.
Cohen MX, Young J, Baek JM, Kessler C, Ranganath C., Brain Res Cogn Brain Res 25(3), 2005
PMID: 16289773
The end-state comfort effect in bimanual grip selection.
Fischman MG, Stodden DF, Lehman DM., Res Q Exerc Sport 74(1), 2003
PMID: 12659472
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

AUTHOR UNKNOWN, 0
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

AUTHOR UNKNOWN, 0

Mohammed, 2009
The prehensile movements of the human hand.
NAPIER JR., J Bone Joint Surg Br 38-B(4), 1956
PMID: 13376678

Rosenbaum, 1990

AUTHOR UNKNOWN, 0

Rosenbaum, 1993

AUTHOR UNKNOWN, 0
On the relative independence of thinking biases and cognitive ability.
Stanovich KE, West RF., J Pers Soc Psychol 94(4), 2008
PMID: 18361678
Developing motor planning over ages.
Thibaut JP, Toussaint L., J Exp Child Psychol 105(1-2), 2010
PMID: 19919864

Export

0 Marked Publications

Open Data PUB

Web of Science

View record in Web of Science®

Sources

PMID: 22551086
PubMed | Europe PMC

Search this title in

Google Scholar