Abstract
In our earlier research, kinematic and kinetic parameters of grasping differed significantly when participants grasped the same object once in a traditional laboratory paradigm, and once as part of a captivating computer game. We attributed this finding to the fact that grasping movements in the laboratory were repetitive and meaningless, while those in the computer game were embedded in complex behavior and served a meaningful purpose. In that work, we argued that grasping in the computer game is more characteristic of everyday life behavior; however, this conclusion has been criticized on the grounds that a computer game is not a typical everyday activity. The present study therefore compares grasping in a traditional laboratory paradigm to that in an indisputably everyday context: grocery shopping. Thirty-three young adults executed externally triggered arm movements to grasp nondescript objects (laboratory task, L) and place them on a tablet, or they walked through a fictitious grocery store towards a shelf to grasp grocery products and placed them into a shopping basket (everyday-like task, E). Size, shape, weight and location of to-be-grasped objects were identical in both tasks. We found that of the analyzed 16 kinematic parameters, 13 differed significantly between tasks. Specifically, grip apertures were larger, movements were slower and grip–transport coupling was more variable in E compared to L. We conclude that kinematic differences between both persist even if task is more realistic than in our earlier research. Our findings are compatible with the notion that movement planning is less stringent in E than in L.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Commonly, loadings are considered to be “satisfactory” if they exceed 0.7 (Daly and Miller 1975).
References
Acker MB (1990) A review of the ecological validity of neuropsychological tests. In: Tupper DE, Cicerone KD (eds) The neuropsychology of everyday life: assessment and basic competencies. Springer, Kluwer, pp 19–55
Adam JJ, Nieuwenstein JH, Huys R et al (2000) Control of rapid aimed hand movements: the one-target advantage. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 26:295–312
Allport A, Styles E, Hsieh S (1994) Shifting intentional set: exploring the dynamic control of tasks. In: Kornblum S, Umiltà C, Moscovitch M (eds) Attention and performance XV. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 421–452
Ansuini C, Giosa L, Turella L et al (2008) An object for an action, the same object for other actions: effects on hand shaping. Exp Brain Res 185:111–119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-007-1136-4
Baak B, Bock O (2015) Context-dependence of aimed arm movements: a transitory or a stable phenomenon? Int J Kinesiol Sport Sci. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijkss.v.2n.4p.21
Baak B, Bock O, Dovern A et al (2015) Deficits of reach-to-grasp coordination following stroke: comparison of instructed and natural movements. Neuropsychologia 77:1–9
Bock O (1996) Grasping of virtual objects in changed gravity. Aviat Space Environ Med 67:1185–1189
Bock O, Baak B (2013) Dependence of manual grasping on the behavioral context: a comparison between arms and between age groups. Psychology 04:998–1003. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2013.412144
Bock O, Hagemann A (2010) An experimental paradigm to compare motor performance under laboratory and under everyday-like conditions. J Neurosci Methods 193:24–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2010.08.005
Bock O, Jüngling S (1999) Reprogramming of grip aperture in a double-step virtual grasping paradigm. Exp Brain Res 125:61–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002210050658
Bock O, Steinberg F (2012) Age-related deficits of manual grasping in a labortory versus in an everyday-like context. Ageing Res 4:48–52
Bock O, Züll A (2013) Characteristics of grasping movements in a laboratory and in an everyday-like context. Hum Mov Sci 32:249–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2012.12.009
Borchers S, Himmelbach M (2012) The recognition of everyday objects changes grasp scaling. Vis Res 67:8–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2012.06.019
Burgess PW, Alderman N, Evans J et al (1998) The ecological validity of tests of executive function. J Int Neuropsychol Soc 4:547–558
Buxbaum LJ, Johnson-Frey SH, Bartlett-Williams M (2005) Deficient internal models for planning hand–object interactions in apraxia. Neuropsychologia 43:917–929. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2004.09.006
Castiello U (2005) The neuroscience of grasping. Nat Rev Neurosci 6:726–736. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1744
Chamberlin CJ, Magill RA (1989) Preparation and control of rapid, multisegmented responses in simple and choice environments. Res Q Exerc Sport 60:256–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.1989.10607449
Chaytor N, Schmitter-Edgecombe M (2003) The ecological validity of neuropsychological tests: a review of the literature on everyday cognitive skills. Neuropsychol Rev 13:181–197. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:NERV.0000009483.91468.fb
Daly JA, Miller MD (1975) Apprehension of writing as a predictor of message intensity. J Psychol 89:175–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1975.9915748
Daprati E, Sirigu A (2006) How we interact with objects: learning from brain lesions. Trends Cogn Sci 10:265–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.04.005
Dubrowski A, Bock O, Carnahan H, Jüngling S (2002) The coordination of hand transport and grasp formation during single- and double-perturbed human prehension movements. Exp Brain Res 145:365–371. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-002-1120-y
Flanagan JR, Tresilian JR (1994) Grip-load force coupling: a general control strategy for transporting objects. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 20:944–957
Goodale M, Milner AD (1992) Separate visual pathways for perception and action [review] [61 refs]. Trends Neurosci 15:20–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/0166-2236(92)90344-8
Haggard P, Wing AM (1991) Remote responses to perturbation in human prehension. Neurosci Lett 122:103–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3940(91)90204-7
Henry FM, Rogers DE (1960) Increased response latency for complicated movements and a “memory drum” theory of neuromotor reaction. Res Q Am Assoc Health Phys Educ Recreat 31:448–458. https://doi.org/10.1080/10671188.1960.10762052
Hermsdörfer J, Marquardt C, Philipp J et al (2000) Moving weightless objects. Grip force control during microgravity. Exp Brain Res 132:52–64
Howard LA, Tipper SP (1997) Hand deviations away from visual cues: indirect evidence for inhibition. Exp Brain Res 113:144–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02454150
Jeannerod M (1981) Intersegmental coordination during reaching at natural visual objects. Erlbaum, Hillsdale
Johansson RS, Cole KJ (1992) Sensory-motor coordination manipulative during actions grasping and. Curr Opin Neurobiol 2:815–823
Kim Y, Kim WS, Koh K et al (2016) Deficits in motor abilities for multi-finger force control in hemiparetic stroke survivors. Exp Brain Res 234:2391–2402. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-016-4644-2
Kleinschmidt A, Bu C, Hutton C et al (2002) Expressing perceptual hysteresis in visual letter recognition. Neuron 34:659–666
Lohse KR, Sherwood DE, Healy AF (2010) How changing the focus of attention affects performance, kinematics, and electromyography in dart throwing. Hum Mov Sci 29:542–555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2010.05.001
McCarley JS, Kramer AF, DiGirolamo GJ (2003) Differential effects of the Müller–Lyer illusion on reflexive and voluntary saccades. J Vis 3:9. https://doi.org/10.1167/3.11.9
Monsell S, Sumner P, Waters H (2003) Task-set reconfiguration with predictable and unpredictable task switches. Mem Cogn 31:327–342. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194391
Munzert J, Maurer H, Reiser M (2014) Verbal-motor attention-focusing instructions influence kinematics and performance on a golf-putting task. J Mot Behav 46:309–318. https://doi.org/10.1515/eces-2015-0007
Raphan T, Imai T, Moore ST, Cohen B (2001) Vestibular compensation and orientation during locomotion. Ann N Y Acad Sci 942:128–138. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2001.tb03740.x
Richardson MJ, Marsh KL, Baron RM (2007) Judging and actualizing intrapersonal and interpersonal affordances. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 33:845–859
Rinaldi NM, Moraes R (2015) Gait and reach-to-grasp movements are mutually modified when performed simultaneously. Hum Mov Sci 40:38–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2014.12.001
Rinaldi NM, Lim J, Hamill J et al (2018) Walking combined with reach-to-grasp while crossing obstacles at different distances. Gait Posture 65:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2018.06.167
Rossetti Y, Pisella L (2002) Several “vision for action” systems: a guide to dissociating and integrating dorsal and ventral functions (Tutorial). Common Mech Percept action (Attention Perform) 110:62–119
Steinberg F, Bock O (2013a) Context dependence of manual grasping movements in near weightlessness. Aviat Sp Environ Med 84:467–472. https://doi.org/10.3357/ASEM.3348.2013
Steinberg F, Bock O (2013b) Influence of cognitive functions and behavioral context on grasping kinematics. Exp Brain Res 225:387–397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-012-3379-y
Steinberg F, Bock O (2013c) Effects of the motivation focus on manual grasping. Psychol Neurosci 6:375–381. https://doi.org/10.3922/j.psns.2013.3.15
Steinberg F, Bock O (2013d) The context dependence of grasping movements: an evaluation of possible reasons. Exp Brain Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-013-3618-x
Steinberg F, Vogt T (2015) Context-dependent neuroelectric responses during motor control. Behav Brain Res 281:301–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2014.12.027
Verhaeghen P, Martin M, Sędek G (2012) Reconnecting cognition in the lab and cognition in real life: the role of compensatory social and motivational factors in explaining how cognition ages in the wild. Neuropsychol Dev Cogn B Aging Neuropsychol Cogn 19:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/13825585.2011.645009
Waszak F, Wascher E, Keller P et al (2005) Intention-based and stimulus-based mechanisms in action selection. Exp Brain Res 162:346–356. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-004-2183-8
Weigelt C, Bock O (2007) Adaptation of grasping responses to distorted object size and orientation. Exp Brain Res 181:139–146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-007-0911-6
Wing AM, Turton A, Fraser C (1986) Grasp size and accuracy of approach in reaching. J Mot Behav 18:245–260
Acknowledgements
We wish to thank Nils Meixner, Sylvester Prokopenko and Annika Gerspitzer for their support in data collection and analysis. This work was conducted without external funding.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kim, K., Bock, O. Ecological validity of manual grasping movements in an everyday-like grocery shopping task. Exp Brain Res 237, 1169–1177 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-019-05496-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-019-05496-0