Top

Gepubliceerd in:

01-07-2015 | Original Article

Second-order motor planning in children: insights from a cup-manipulation-task

Auteurs: Kathrin Wunsch, Daniel J. Weiss, Thomas Schack, Matthias Weigelt

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 4/2015

Abstract

The present study examined the development of anticipatory motor planning in an object manipulation task that has been used to successfully demonstrate motor planning in non-human primates (Weiss et al. in Psychol Sci 18:1063–1068, 2007). Seventy-five participants from four different age groups participated in a cup-manipulation task. One group was preschool children (average age of 5.1 years), two groups were primary school children (7.7 and 9.8 years old respectively) and the final group was comprised of adults. The experimental task entailed reaching for a plastic cup that was vertically suspended in an apparatus in either upright or inverted orientation, removing the cup by its stem and then retrieving a small toy from the inside of the cup. When the cup was inverted in the apparatus, evidence for anticipatory motor planning could be achieved by initially gripping the stem using an inverted (thumb-down) grip posture. We found that when the cup was in upright orientation, all participants reached for the cup using an upright grip (i.e. thumb-up posture). However, when the cup was inverted in the apparatus, only adults consistently used an inverted grasping posture, though the percentage of inverted grips among participants did increase with age. These results suggest a protracted development for anticipatory motor planning abilities in children. Surprisingly, the performance of adults on this task more closely resembles the performance of several nonhuman primate species as opposed to children even at approximately 10 years of age. We discuss how morphological constraints on flexibility may help account for these findings.

vorige artikel Constrained postures and spatial S–R compatibility as measured by the Simon effect

volgende artikel Sensory–motor properties of past actions bias memory in a recognition task

Separating the children to different groups is an important issue, but it is also very challenging, as many discussions between the authors from Germany and the USA have revealed. In this regard, the age at which children transfer from kindergarten into school becomes important. Because the social context in which children spend their daily life is much different at kindergarten and school, we did not want to include a group in which children of both institutions are mixed. Therefore, it was decided to separate the younger two groups into pre-school and primary school children, taking into account that the age bins are a little larger for these groups. However, the data was also analyzed for 2-year bins, which did not provide any different results. That is, the developmental trajectory of ESC planning was similar when parsing the groups into 2-year bins to the data pattern reported in the results section.

Adalbjornsson, C. F., Fischman, M. G., & Rudisill, M. E. (2008). The end-state comfort effect in young children. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 79(1), 36–41. doi:10.5641/193250308X13086753542816.PubMedCrossRef

Chapman, K. M., Weiss, D. J., & Rosenbaum, D. A. (2010). Evolutionary roots of motor planning: the end-state comfort effect in lemurs. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 124(2), 229–232. doi:10.1037/a0018025.PubMedCrossRef

Claxton, L. J., Keen, R., & McCarty, M. E. (2003). Evidence of motor planning in infant reaching behavior. Psychological Science, 14, 354–356. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.24421.PubMedCrossRef

Claxton, L. J., McCarty, M. E., & Keen, R. (2009). Self-directed action affects planning in tool-use tasks with toddlers. Infant Behavior and Development, 32, 230–233. doi:10.1016/j.infbeh.2008.12.004.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Costello, M. E., & Fragaszy, D. M. (1988). Prehension in Cebus and Saimiri: I. grip type and hand preference. American Journal of Primatology, 15, 235–245. doi:10.1002/ajp.1350150306.CrossRef

Fischman, M. G. (1997). End-state comfort in object manipulation [Abstract]. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 68((Suppl)), A-60.

Frey, S. H., & Povinelli, D. J. (2012). Comparative investigations of manual action representations: evidence that chimpanzees represent the cost of potential future actions involving tools. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of Biological Sciences, 367(1585), 48–58. doi:10.1098/rstb.2011.0189.CrossRef

Johnson, S. H. (2000). Thinking ahead: the case for motor imagery in prospective judgements of prehension. Cognition, 74, 33–70. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00063-3.PubMedCrossRef

Jongbloed-Pereboom, M., Nijhuis-Van der Sanden, M. W. G., Saraber-Schiphorst, N., Crajé, C., & Steenbergen, B. (2013). Anticipatory action planning increases from 3 to 10 years of age in typically developing children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 114, 295–305. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2012.08.008.PubMedCrossRef

Jovanovic, B., & Schwarzer, G. (2011). Learning to grasp efficiently: the development of motor planning and the role of observational learning. Vision Research, 51, 945–954. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2010.12.003.PubMedCrossRef

Knudsen, B., Henning, A., Wunsch, K., Weigelt, M., & Aschersleben, G. (2012). The end-state comfort effect in 3- to 8-year-old children in two object manipulation tasks. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 1–10. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00445.CrossRef

MacNeilage, P. F. (1991). The “postural origins” theory of primate neurobiological asymmetries. In N. A. Krasnegor, D. M. Rumbaugh, R. L. Schiefelbusch, & M. Studdert-Kennedy (Eds.), Biological and behavioral determinants of language development (pp. 165–188). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Manoel, E. J., & Moreira, C. R. P. (2005). Planning manipulative hand movements: do young children show the end-state comfort effect? Journal of Human Movement Studies, 49, 93–114.

McCarty, M. E., Clifton, R. K., & Collard, R. R. (1999). Problem solving in infancy: the emergence of an action plan. Journal of Developmental Psychology, 35, 1091–1101. doi:10.1037//0012-1649.35.4.1091.CrossRef

Napier, J. R. (1960). Studies of the hands of living primates. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 134(4), 647–657. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7998.1960.tb05606.x.CrossRef

Rosenbaum, D. A., Chapman, K. M., Weigelt, M., Weiss, D. J., & Van der Wel, R. (2012). Cognition, action, and object manipulation. Psychonomic Bulletin, 138(5), 924–946. doi:10.1037/a0027839.CrossRef

Rosenbaum, D. A., Marchak, F., Barnes, H. J., Vaughan, J., Slotta, J. D., & Jorgensen, M. J. (1990). Constraints for action selection: overhand versus underhand grip. In M. Jeannerod (Ed.), Attention and performance XIII (pp. 321–342). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Rosenbaum, D. A., Vaughan, J., Jorgensen, M. J., Barnes, H. H., & Stewart, E. (1993). Plans for object manipulation. In D. E. Meyer & S. Kornblum (Eds.), Attention and performance XIV: Synergies in experimental psychology, artificial intelligence, and cognitive neuroscience. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Scharoun, S. M., & Bryden, P. J. (2013). The development of end- and beginning-state comfort in a cup manipulation task. Journal of Developmental Psychobiology,. doi:10.1002/dev.21108.

Seegelke, C., Hughes, C. M. L., & Schack, T. (2011). An investigation into manual asymmetries in grasp behavior and kinematics during and object manipulation task. Experimental Brain Research, 215, 65–75. doi:10.1007/s00221-011-2872-z.PubMedCrossRef

Spinozzi, G., Truppa, V., & Laganà, T. (2004). Grasping behavior in tufted capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella): grip types and manual laterality for picking up a small food item. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 125, 30–41. doi:10.1002/ajpa.10362.PubMedCrossRef

Stöckel, T., Hughes, C. M. L., & Schack, T. (2012). Representation of grasp postures and anticipatory motor planning in children. Psychological Research, 76(6), 768–776. doi:10.1007/s00426-011-0387-7.PubMedCrossRef

Thibaut, J. P., & Touissant, L. (2010). Developing motor planning over ages. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 105(1–2), 116–129. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2009.10.003.PubMedCrossRef

Weigelt, M., & Schack, T. (2010). The development of end-state comfort planning in preschool children. Experimental Psychology, 57(1), 1–7. doi:10.1027/1618-3169/a000059.CrossRef

Weiss, D. J., Wark, J. D., & Rosenbaum, D. A. (2007). Monkey see, monkey plan, monkey do: the end-state comfort effect in cotton-top tamarins. Psychological Science, 18, 1063–1068. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.02026.x.PubMedCrossRef

Wilmut, K., & Bryne, M. (2014). Influences of grasp selection in typically developing children. Acta Psychologica, 148, 181–187. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.02.005.PubMedCrossRef

Wolpert, D. M., & Kawato, M. (1998). Multiple paired forward and inverse models for motor control. Neural Networks, 11(7–8), 1317–1329.PubMedCrossRef

Wunsch, K., Henning, A., Aschersleben, G., & Weigelt, M. (2013). A systematic review of the end-state comfort effect in normally developing children and in children with developmental disorders. Journal of Motor Learning and Development, 1(3), 59–76.

Zander, S. L., Weiss, D. J., & Judge, P. G. (2013). The interface between morphology and action planning: a comparison of two species of New World monkeys. Animal Behaviour, 86(6), 1251–1258. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2013.09.028.CrossRef

Titel: Second-order motor planning in children: insights from a cup-manipulation-task
Auteurs: Kathrin Wunsch
Daniel J. Weiss
Thomas Schack
Matthias Weigelt
Publicatiedatum: 01-07-2015
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 4/2015
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-014-0596-y

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 4/2015

Constrained postures and spatial S–R compatibility as measured by the Simon effect

Task-specific effects of reward on task switching

Judgement bias in predicting the success of one’s own basketball free throws but not those of others

Sensory–motor properties of past actions bias memory in a recognition task

Age-related effects on spatial memory across viewpoint changes relative to different reference frames

The curious influence of timing on the magical experience evoked by conjuring tricks involving false transfer: decay of amodal object permanence?