End-State Comfort in Bimanual Object Manipulation
Abstract
The present experiment investigated the sensitivity for end-state comfort in a bimanual object manipulation task. Participants were required to simultaneously reach for two bars and to place the objects' ends into two targets on the table. The design of the experiment allowed to dissociate the relative roles of initial means (e.g., the selection of grips) and final postures (e.g., the anticipation of end-states). The question of interest was whether affording different grip patterns for the two hands would introduce a bias away from reaching end-state comfort. Results revealed a strong sensitivity for end-state comfort, independent of the required grip patterns. In particular, end-state comfort was preferred even if this meant selecting different initial means (i.e., different grips) for the two hands. Hence, end-state oriented action planning appears to dominate interaction costs that may result from motor-related, intermanual interference. We infer that movement planning is constrained by action goals (e.g., a comfortable end-posture for both hands), but largely unaffected by the type of motor actions necessary to achieve these goals.
References
(1995). Asymmetries in coupling dynamics of perception and action. Journal of Motor Behavior, 27, 123– 137
(2002). The neuronal basis of bimanual coordination: Recent neurophysiological evidence and functional models. Acta Physiologica, 110, 139– 159
(2000). Neuromuscular-skeletal constraints upon the dynamics of unimanual and bimanual coordination. Experimental Brain Research, 131, 196– 214
(2004). Where grasps are made reveals how grasps are planned: Generation and recall of motor plans. Experimental Brain Research, 157, 486– 495
(1998). Cognitive neuroscience: The biology of the mind. New York: Norton.
(1993). Structural constraints on bimanual movements. Psychological Research, 55, 83– 98
(2004). A cognitive neuroscience perspective on bimanual coordination and interference. In S. Swinnen, J. Duysens (Eds.), Neuro-behavioral determinants of interlimb coordination (pp. 259-295). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishing.
(1890). The principles of psychology. 2, New York: Holt.
(1999). The 25th Bartlett Lecture. To act or not to act: Perspectives on the representation of actions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 52A, 1– 29
(2005). Goal-congruency in bimanual object manipulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31(1), 145– 156
(2001). Perceptual basis of bimanual coordination. Nature, 414, 69– 73
((2005)). Representational foundations of intentional action. In G. Knoblich, I. Thornton, M. Grosjean, M. Shiffrar (Eds.), The human body: Perception from the inside out (pp. 399-411). New York: Oxford University Press.
(1992). Planning macroscopic aspects of manual control. Human Movement Science, 11, 61– 69
(1995). Planning reaches by evaluating stored postures. Psychological Review, 102, 26– 67
(1990). Constraints for action selection: Overhand versus underhand grip. In M. Jeannerod (Ed.), Attention and performance XIII (pp. 321-342). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
(1997). Planning macroscopic aspects of manual control: End-state comfort and point-of-change effects. Acta Psychologica, 96, 133– 147
(1956). Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill.
(1999). Bimanual coupling during the specification of isometric forces. Experimental Brain Research, 129, 302– 316
(2002). The control and learning of patterns of interlimb coordination: Past and present issues in normal and disordered control. Acta Psychologica, 110, 129– 137
(2004). Two hands, one brain: Cognitive neuroscience of bimanual skill. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences, 8(1), 18– 25