Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

To eat or not to eat? Kinematics and muscle activity of reach-to-grasp movements are influenced by the action goal, but observers do not detect these differences

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

Abstract

Recent evidence suggests that the mirror neuron system responds to the goals of actions, even when the end of the movement is hidden from view. To investigate whether this predictive ability might be based on the detection of early differences between actions with different outcomes, we used electromyography (EMG) and motion tracking to assess whether two actions with different goals (grasp to eat and grasp to place) differed from each other in their initial reaching phases. In a second experiment, we then tested whether observers could detect early differences and predict the outcome of these movements, based on seeing only part of the actions. Experiment 1 revealed early kinematic differences between the two movements, with grasp-to-eat movements characterised by an earlier peak acceleration, and different grasp position, compared to grasp-to-place movements. There were also significant differences in forearm muscle activity in the reaching phase of the two actions. The behavioural data arising from Experiments 2a and 2b indicated that observers are not able to predict whether an object is going to be brought to the mouth or placed until after the grasp has been completed. This suggests that the early kinematic differences are either not visible to observers, or that they are not used to predict the end-goals of actions. These data are discussed in the context of the mirror neuron system.

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
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ansuini C, Santello M, Massaccesi S, Castiello U (2006) Effects of end-goal on hand shaping. J Neurophysiol 95:2456–2465

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Armbrüster C, Spijkers W (2006) Movement planning in prehension: do intended actions influence the initial reach and grasp movement? Mot Control 10(4):311–329

    Google Scholar 

  • Begliomini C, Caria A, Grodd W, Castiello U (2007) Comparing natural and constrained movements: new insights into the visuomotor control of grasping. PLoS ONE 2(10):e1108. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0001108

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Blake R, Shiffrar M (2007) Perception of human motion. Ann Rev Psychol 58:47–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brainard DH (1997) The psychophysics toolbox. Spat Vis 10(4):433–436

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bremner AJ, Cowie D (in press) Developmental origins of the hand in the mind, and the role of the hands in the development of the mind. In: Radman Z (ed) The hand: Organ of the mind. Cambridge: MIT Press

  • Cheng Y, Meltzoff AN, Decety J (2007) Motivation modulates the activity of the human mirror-neuron system. Cereb Cortex 17(8):1979–1986

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen RG, Rosenbaum DA (2004) Where grasps are made reveals how grasps are planned: generation and recall of motor plans. Exp Brain Res 157(4):486–495

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Costello AB, Osborne JW (2005) Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis 10(7): 1–9

  • de Vaus DA (2002) Analyzing social science data. Sage Publications, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Desmurget M, Grafton ST (2000) Forward modeling allows feedback control for fast reaching movements. Trends Cogn Sci 4(11):423–431

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • di Pellegrino G, Fadiga L, Fogassi L, Gallese V, Rizzolatti G (1992) Understanding motor events: a neurophysiological study. Exp Brain Res 91(1):176–180

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eastough D, Edwards MG (2007) Movement kinematics in prehension are affected by grasping objects of different mass. Exp Brain Res 176(1):193–198

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fadiga L, Fogassi L, Pavesi G, Rizzolatti G (1995) Motor facilitation during action observation: a magnetic stimulation study. J Neurophysiol 73(6):2608–2611

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ferrari PF, Gallese V, Rizzolatti G, Fogassi L (2003) Mirror neurons responding to the observation of ingestive and communicative mouth actions in the monkey ventral premotor cortex. Eur J Neurosci 17(8):1703–1714

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fikes TG, Klatzky RL, Lederman SJ (1994) Effects of object texture on precontact movement time in human prehension. J Mot Behav 26(4):325–332

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Flatters IJ, Otten L, Witvliet A, Henson B, Raymond JH, Culmer P, Bingham GP, Wilkie RM, Mon-Williams M (2012) Predicting the effect of surface texture on the qualitative form of prehension. PLoS ONE 7(3):e32770. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0032770

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fogassi L, Ferrari PF, Gesierich B, Rozzi S, Chersi F, Rizzolatti G (2005) Parietal lobe: from action organization to intention understanding. Science 308:662–667

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Iacoboni M, Woods RP, Brass M, Bekkering H, Mazziotta JC, Rizzolatti G (1999) Cortical mechanisms of human imitation. Science 286(5449):2526–2528

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Manera V, Becchio C, Cavallo A, Sartori L, Castiello U (2011) Cooperation or competition? Discriminating between social intentions by observing prehensile movements. Exp Brain Res 211(3–4):547–556

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Marteniuk RG, Mackenzie CL, Jeannerod M, Athenes S, Dugas C (1987) Constraints on human arm movement trajectories. Can J Psychol 41(3):365–378

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mon-Williams M, Bingham GP (2011) Discovering affordances that determine the spatial structure of reach-to-grasp movements. Exp Brain Res 211:145–160

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pryde KM, Roy EA, Campbell K (1998) Prehension in children and adults: the effects of object size. Hum Mov Sci 17:743–752

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rizzolatti G, Craighero L (2004) The mirror-neuron system. Ann Rev Neurosci 27:169–192

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rochat P (1993) Hand-mouth coordination in the newborn: Morphology, determinants, and early development of a basic act. In: Savelsbergh GJP (ed) The development of coordination in infancy. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 265–288

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Runeson S, Frykholm G (1983) Kinematic specifications of dynamics as an informational basis for person-and-action perception: Expectation, gender recognition, and deceptive intention 112: 585–615

    Google Scholar 

  • Sartori L, Cavallo A, Bucchioni G, Castiello U (2011a) Corticospinal excitability is specifically modulated by the social dimension of observed actions. Exp Brain Res 211(3–4):557–568

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sartori L, Straulino E, Castiello U (2011b) How objects are grasped: the interplay between affordances and end-goals. PLoS ONE 6(9):e25203. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0025203

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schuboe A, Maldonado A, Stork S, Beetz M (2008) Subsequent actions influence motor control parameters of a current grasping action. In: The 17th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, 2008. RO-MAN 2008, pp 389–394

  • Sebanz N, Shiffrar M (2007) Bluffing bodies: inferring intentions from actions. Perception 36(Suppl):176

    Google Scholar 

  • Southgate V, Johnson MH, El Karoui I, Csibra G (2010) Motor system activation reveals infants’ on-line prediction of others’ goals. Psychol Sci 21(3):355–359

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stapel JC, Hunnius S, Bekkering H (2012) Online prediction of others’ actions: the contribution of the target object, action context and movement kinematics. Psychol Res 76:434–445

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens J (2002) Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah

    Google Scholar 

  • Umiltà MA, Kohler E, Gallese V, Fogassi L, Fadiga L, Keysers C, Rizzolatti G (2001) I know what you are doing. A neurophysiological study. Neuron 31(1):155–165

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Villiger M, Chandrasekharan S, Welsh TN (2011) Activity of human motor system during action observation is modulated by object presence. Exp Brain Res 209(1):85–93

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Watson AB, Pelli DG (1983) QUEST: a bayesian adaptive psychometric method. Percept Psychophys 33(2):113–120

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences, University of Reading, Earley Gate, Whiteknights, Reading, RG6 6AL, UK

    Katherine R. Naish, Arran T. Reader, Carmel Houston-Price & Nicholas P. Holmes

  2. Centre for Integrative Neuroscience and Neurodynamics, University of Reading, Earley Gate, Whiteknights, Reading, RG6 6AL, UK

    Katherine R. Naish & Nicholas P. Holmes

  3. Department of Psychology, Goldsmiths, University of London, New Cross, London, SE14 6NW, UK

    Andrew J. Bremner

Authors
  1. Katherine R. Naish
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Arran T. Reader
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Carmel Houston-Price
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Andrew J. Bremner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Nicholas P. Holmes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katherine R. Naish.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

221_2012_3367_MOESM1_ESM.pdf

Online Resource 1. Component loadings of temporal kinematic variables for the pre-grasp movement. Supplementary material 1 (PDF 100 kb)

221_2012_3367_MOESM2_ESM.pdf

Online Resource 2. Component loadings of spatial kinematic variables for the pre-grasp movement. Supplementary material 2 (PDF 94 kb)

221_2012_3367_MOESM3_ESM.pdf

Online Resource 3. Component loadings of all kinematic variables for the (post-) grasp-to-place movement. Supplementary material 3 (PDF 113 kb)

221_2012_3367_MOESM4_ESM.pdf

Online Resource 4. Component loadings of all kinematic variables for the (post-) grasp-to-eat movement. Supplementary material 4 (PDF 109 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Naish, K.R., Reader, A.T., Houston-Price, C. et al. To eat or not to eat? Kinematics and muscle activity of reach-to-grasp movements are influenced by the action goal, but observers do not detect these differences. Exp Brain Res 225, 261–275 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-012-3367-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-012-3367-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation