Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Physically coupling two objects in a bimanual task alters kinematics but not end-state comfort

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Experimental Brain Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

People often grasp objects with an awkward grip to ensure a comfortable hand posture at the end of the movement. This end-state comfort effect is a predominant constraint during unimanual movements. However, during bimanual movements the tendency for both hands to satisfy end-state comfort is affected by factors such as end-orientation congruency and task context. Although bimanual end-state comfort has been examined when the hands manipulate two independent objects, no research has examined end-state comfort when the hands are required to manipulate two physically-coupled objects. In the present experiment, kinematics and grasp behavior during a unimanual and bimanual reaching and placing tasks were examined, when the hands manipulate two physically-connected objects. Forty-five participants were assigned to one of three groups; unimanual, bimanual no-spring (the objects were not physically connected), and bimanual spring (the objects were connected by a spring), and instructed to grasp and place objects in various end-orientations, depending on condition. Physically connecting the objects did not affect end-state comfort prevalence. However, it resulted in decreased interlimb coupling. This finding supports the notion of a flexible constraint hierarchy, in which action goals guide the selection of lower level action features (i.e., hand grip used for grasping), and the particular movements used to accomplish that goal (i.e., interlimb coupling) are controlled throughout the movement.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In no trials were there any gaps greater than this.

  2. Analysis revealed no significant differences between egocentric and allocentric congruency, (χ 2(1)  = 0.024, P = 0.878), thus the data were collapsed across congruency.

  3. The comfort ratings were assessed using a separate pool of participants (n = 20, X = 24.79, SD = 3.21, 6 males and 14 females). A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted on the factors Initial grip (overhand, underhand), Hand (left hand, right hand), and Object end-orientation (0° rotation, 90° internal rotation, 180° rotation, 90° external rotation). Analysis revealed significant main effects of Initial grip [F(1,18) = 5.15, P = 0.04] and Object end orientation [F(1,18) = 5.15, P = 0.04], but not Hand [F(1,18) = 0.16, P = 0.70]. There was also a significant Initial grip × Object end-orientation interaction [F(3,54) = 39.57, P = 0.01]. Post hoc analyses revealed that mean comfort ratings were higher for the overhand grip compared to the underhand grip when no rotation [t(18) = 4.47, P < 0.01] and 90° external rotation [t(18) = 15.93, P < 0.01] was required. In contrast, when the movement required either 90° internal rotation or 180° rotation, participants rated underhand grips more comfortable than overhand grips [t(18) = −11.90, P < 0.01 and t(18) = −7.02, P < 0.01, respectively].

  4. As with the grip data, we did not observe differences between egocentric and allocentric congruency for any of the timing and kinematic variables. Therefore, the egocentric and allocentric data were compressed to form the identical end-orientation condition.

References

  • Abbs JH, Gracco VL, Cole KJ (1984) Control of multimovement coordination: sensorimotor mechanisms in speech motor programming. J Mot Behav 16:195–232

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bootsma RJ, Marteniuk RG, Mackenzie CL, Zaal FTJM (1994) The speed-accuracy trade-off in manual prehension: effects of movement amplitude, object size and object width on kinematic characteristics. Exp Brain Res 98:535–541

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chieffi S, Gentilucci M (1993) Coordination between the transport and the grasp components during prehension movements. Exp Brain Res 94:471–477

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Claxton LJ, Keen R, McCarty ME (2003) Evidence of motor planning in infant reaching behavior. Psychol Sci 14:354–356

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Easton TA (1972) On the normal use of reflexes. Am Sci 60:591–599

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fischman MG, Stodden DF, Lehman DM (2003) The end-state comfort effect in bimanual grip selection. Res Q Exerc Sport 74:17–24

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Franz EA (2003) Bimanual action representation: a window to human evolution. In: Johnston-Frey S (ed) Taking action: cognitive neuroscience perspectives on the problem of intentional acts. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 259–288

    Google Scholar 

  • Franz EA, McCormick R (2010) Conceptual unifying constraints override sensorimotor interference during anticipatory control of bimanual actions. Exp Brain Res 203:273–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franz EA, Zelaznik HN, McCabe G (1991) Spatial topological constraints in a bimanual task. Acta Psychol 77:137–151

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Franz EA, Eliassen J, Ivry RB, Gazzaniga MS (1996) Dissociation of spatial and temporal coupling in the bimanual movements of callosotomy patients. Psychol Sci 7:306–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franz EA, Zelaznik HN, Swinnen SP, Walter CW (2001) Spatial conceptual influences on the coordination of bimanual actions: when a dual task becomes a single task. J Mot Behav 33:103–112

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes CML, Franz EA (2008) Goal-related planning constraints in bimanual grasping and placing of objects. Exp Brain Res 188:541–550

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Janssen L, Beuting M, Meulenbroek RGJ, Steenbergen B (2009) Combined effects of planning and execution constraints on bimanual task performance. Exp Brain Res 192:61–73

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Janssen L, Crajé C, Weigelt M, Steenbergen B (2010) Motor planning in bimanual object manipulation: two plans for two hands? Mot Control 14:240–254

    Google Scholar 

  • Janssen L, Meulenbroek RGJ, Steenbergen B (2011) Behavioral evidence for left-hemisphere specialization of motor planning. Exp Brain Res 209:65–72

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jeannerod M (1984) The timing of natural prehension movements. J Mot Behav 16:235–254

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kelso JAS (1984) Phase transitions and critical behavior in human bimanual coordination. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol 18:645–668

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelso JAS, Southard DL, Goodman D (1979) Coordination of 2-handed movements. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 5:229–238

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kelso JAS, Tuller B, Vatikiotis-Bateson E, Fowler CA (1984) Functionally specific articulatory cooperation following jaw perturbations during speech: evidence for coordinative structures. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 10:812–832

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kunde W, Weigelt M (2005) Goal congruency in bimanual object manipulation. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 31:145–156

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kunde W, Krauss H, Weigelt M (2009) Goal congruency without stimulus congruency in bimanual coordination. Psychol Res 73:34–42

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ma S, Feldman AG (1995) Two functionally different synergies during arm reaching movements involving the trunk. J Neurophysiol 73:2120–2122

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Marteniuk RG, MacKenzie CL, Jeannerod M, Athenes S, Dugas C (1987) Constraints on human arm movement trajectories. Can J Psychol 41:365–378

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mechsner F, Kerzel D, Knoblich G, Prinz W (2001) Perceptual basis of bimanual coordination. Nature 414:69–73

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbaum DA, Marchak F, Barnes HJ, Vaughan J, Slotta JD, Jorgensen MJ (1990) Constraints for action selection: overhand versus underhand grips. In: Jeannerod M (ed) Attention and performance XIII. Motor representation and control. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 211–265

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbaum DA, Vaughan J, Jorgensen MJ, Barnes HJ, Stewart E (1993) Plans for object manipulation. In: Meyer DE, Kornblum S (eds) Attention and performance XIV: synergies in experimental psychology, artificial intelligence, and cognitive neuroscience. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 803–820

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbaum DA, van Heugten CM, Caldwell GE (1996) From cognition to biomechanics and back: the end-state comfort effect and the middle-is-faster effect. Acta Psychol 94:59–85

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Shaiman S (1989) Kinematic and electromyographic responses to perturbation of the jaw. J Acoust Soc of Am 86:78–88

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Short MW, Cauraugh JH (1999) Precision hypothesis and the endstate comfort effect. Acta Psychol 100:243–252

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Turvey MT (1979) The thesis of efference-mediation of vision cannot be rationalized. Behav Brain Sci 2:81–83

    Google Scholar 

  • Turvey MT (1991) Coordination. Am Psychol 45:938–953

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Wel R, Rosenbaum DA (2010) Bimanual grasping planning reflects changing rather than fixed constraint dominance. Exp Brain Res 205:351–362

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Weigelt M (2007) Re-examining structural constraints on the initiation of bimanual movements: the role of starting locations, movement amplitude, and target locations. Hum Mov Sci 26:212–225

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Weigelt M, Kunde W, Prinz W (2006) End-state comfort in bimanual object manipulation. Exp Psychol 53:143–148

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Weigelt M, Rieger M, Mechsner F, Prinz W (2007) Target-related coupling in bimanual coupling in bimanual reaching movements. Psychol Res 71:438–447

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Weir P, MacKenzie CL, Marteniuk RG, Cargoe SL, Frazer MB (1991) The effects of object weight on the kinematics of prehension. J Mot Behav 23:192–204

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Psychology and Sport Sciences, Bielefeld University, 33501, Bielefeld, Germany

    Charmayne M. L. Hughes

  2. Department of Health and Kinesiology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA

    Jeffrey M. Haddad, Howard N. Zelaznik & Joong Hyun Ryu

  3. Department of Psychology, University of Otago, Dunedin, 9054, New Zealand

    Elizabeth A. Franz

Authors
  1. Charmayne M. L. Hughes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jeffrey M. Haddad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Elizabeth A. Franz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Howard N. Zelaznik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Joong Hyun Ryu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Charmayne M. L. Hughes.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hughes, C.M.L., Haddad, J.M., Franz, E.A. et al. Physically coupling two objects in a bimanual task alters kinematics but not end-state comfort. Exp Brain Res 211, 219–229 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-011-2673-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-011-2673-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation