Top

Gepubliceerd in:

01-05-2012 | Original Article

The continuous end-state comfort effect: weighted integration of multiple biases

Auteurs: Oliver Herbort, Martin V. Butz

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 3/2012

Abstract

The grasp orientation when grasping an object is frequently aligned in anticipation of the intended rotation of the object (end-state comfort effect). We analyzed grasp orientation selection in a continuous task to determine the mechanisms underlying the end-state comfort effect. Participants had to grasp a box by a circular handle—which allowed for arbitrary grasp orientations—and then had to rotate the box by various angles. Experiments 1 and 2 revealed both that the rotation’s direction considerably determined grasp orientations and that end-postures varied considerably. Experiments 3 and 4 further showed that visual stimuli and initial arm postures biased grasp orientations if the intended rotation could be easily achieved. The data show that end-state comfort but also other factors determine grasp orientation selection. A simple mechanism that integrates multiple weighted biases can account for the data.

vorige artikel Time in action contexts: learning when an action effect occurs

volgende artikel An attentional approach to study mental representations of different parts of the hand

Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers

With the term “anticipatory grasp orientations”, we refer to grasp orientations that have an anticipatory component.

The rotation angle can assume both positive and negative values

The effect of the context is unlikely to be cancelled out by the different ratios of women and men participating in Experiments 1 and 2 (c.f. Fischman 1998), because similar results are obtained if only women are included in the analysis (for all interactions p > 0.23).

Grasp selection may be biased by optical illusions (Crajé et al. 2008). However, here we did not want to create an illusion that distorted the perceived orientation of the object that was to be grasped, but wanted to suggest a certain way of grasping and turning the box to the participants.

Note that we only included the arrow start position left and right because they are the conditions that can be interpreted most easily.

We thank an anonymous reviewer for suggesting this explanation.

We used the matlab function fminsearchbnd (http://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/8277-fminsearchbnd) to determine values that result in the smallest root mean square error for each participant. We constrained the values of p _anti,cw, p _anti,ccw, and p _const to [−200°,200°]. As each participant provided only three data points in Experiment 2, the model, which has four free parameters in the case of Experiment 2, fits the data trivially (R ² = 1.0).

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, 36–41.PubMedCrossRef

Bubic, A., von Cramon, D. Y., & Schubotz, R. I. (2010). Prediction, cognition and the brain. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 4, 1–15.

Butz, M. V., Herbort, O., & Hoffmann, J. (2007). Exploiting redundancy for flexible behavior: Unsupervised learning in a modular sensorimotor control architecture. Psychological Review, 114(4), 1015–1046.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.PubMedCrossRef

Cisek, P. (2006). Integrated neural processes for defining potential actions and deciding between them: A computational model. Journal of Neuroscience, 26(38), 9761–9770.PubMedCrossRef

Cohen, R. G., & Rosenbaum, D. A. (2004). Where grasps are made reveals how grasps are planned: Generation and recall of motor plans. Experimental Brain Research, 157, 486–495.CrossRef

Coren, S. (1993). The lateral preference inventory for measurement of handedness, footedness, eyedness, and earedness: Norms for young adults. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 31(1), 1–3.

Crajé, C., van der Kamp, J., & Steenbergen, B. (2008). The effect of the “rod-and-frame” illusion on grip planning in a sequential object manipulation task. Experimental Brain Research, 185, 53–62.CrossRef

Engelbrecht, S. E. (2001). Minimum principles in motor control. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 45, 497–542.PubMedCrossRef

Erlhagen, W., & Schöner, G. (2002). Dynamic field theory of movement preparation. Psychological Review, 109(3), 545–572.PubMedCrossRef

Fischer, M. H., Rosenbaum, D. A., & Vaughan, J. (1997). Speed and sequential effects in reaching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23(2), 404–428.PubMedCrossRef

Fischman, M. G. (1998). Constraints on grip-selection: Minimizing awkwardness. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 86, 328–330.PubMed

Flash, T., & Hogan, N. (1985). The coordination of arm movements: An experimentally confirmed mathematical model. The Journal of Neuroscience, 5(7), 1688–1703.PubMed

Haggard, P. (1998). Planning of action sequences. Acta Psychologica, 99(2), 201–215.CrossRef

Harris, C. M., & Wolpert, D. M. (1998). Signal-dependent noise determines motor planning. Nature, 394, 780–784.PubMedCrossRef

Herbort, O., & Butz, M. V. (2007). Encoding complete body models enables task dependent optimal control. Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Neural Networks 20, 1639–1644.

Herbort, O., & Butz, M. (2010). Planning and control of hand orientation in grasping movements. Experimental Brain Research, 202(4), 867–878.CrossRef

Hughes, C. (1996). Brief report: Planning problems in autism at the level of motor control. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 26(1), 99–107.PubMedCrossRef

Johnson, S. H. (2000). Thinking ahead: The case for motor imagery in prospective judgements of prehension. Cognition, 74(1), 33–70.PubMedCrossRef

Kelso, J. A. S., Buchanan, J. J., & Murata, T. (1994). Multifunctionality and switching in the coordination dynamics of reaching and grasping. Human Movement Science, 13(1), 63–94.CrossRef

Knill, D. C., & Pouget, A. (2004). The bayesian brain: The role of uncertainty in neural coding and computation. Trends in Neurosciences, 27(12), 712–719. doi:10.1016/j.tins.2004.10.007.PubMedCrossRef

Marotta, J. J., Medendorp, W. P., & Crawford, J. D. (2003). Kinematic rules for upper and lower arm contributions to grasp orientation. Journal of Neurophysiology, 90, 3816–3820.PubMedCrossRef

Matsuoka, J., Berger, R. A., Berglund, L. J., & An, K.-N. (2006). An analysis of symmetry of torque strength of the forearm under resisted forearm rotation in normal subjects. The Journal of Hand Surgery, 31(5), 801–805.PubMedCrossRef

O’Sullivan, L., & Gallwey, T. (2005). Forearm torque strengths and discomfort profiles in pronation and supination. Ergonomics, 48(6), 703–721.PubMedCrossRef

Pezzulo, G., Butz, M. V., Gastelfranchi, C., & Falcone, R. (2008). The challenge of anticipation: A unifying framework for the analysis and design of artificial cognitive systems. Berlin: Springer.

Robert, T., Beurier, G., & Wang, X. (2009). Arm postural anticipation for rotating a spherical object. Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering, 12(1), 217–218.CrossRef

Rosenbaum, D. A., Cohen, R. G., Jax, S. A., Weiss, D. J., & van der Wel, R. (2007). The problem of serial order in behavior: Lashley’s legacy. Human Movement Science, 26, 525–554.PubMedCrossRef

Rosenbaum, D. A., Halloran, E. S., & Cohen, R. G. (2006). Grasping movement plans. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(5), 918–922.CrossRef

Rosenbaum, D. A., & Jorgensen, M. J. (1992). Planning macroscopic aspects of manual control. Human Movement Science, 11(1–2), 61–69.CrossRef

Rosenbaum, D. A., Loukopoulos, L. D., Meulenbroek, R. G. J., Vaughan, J., & Engelbrecht, S. E. (1995). Planning reaches by evaluating stored postures. Psychological Review, 102(1), 28–67.PubMedCrossRef

Rosenbaum, D. A., Marchak, F., Barnes, H. J., Vaughan, J., Siotta, J. D., & Jorgensen, M. J. (1990). Constraints for action selection: Overhand versus underhand grips. In M. Jeannerod (Ed.), Attention and Performance, Vol. XIII (pp. 321–345). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Rosenbaum, D. A., Meulenbroek, R. G. J., Vaughan, J., & Jansen, C. (2001). Posture-based motion planning: Applications to grasping. Psychological Review, 108(4), 709–734.PubMedCrossRef

Rosenbaum, D. A., van Heugten, C. M., & Caldwell, G. E. (1996). From cognition to biomechanics and back: The end-state comfort effect and the middle-is-faster effect. Acta Psychologica, 94, 59–85.PubMedCrossRef

Rosenbaum, D. A., Vaughan, J., Barnes, H. J., & Jorgensen, M. J. (1992). Time course of movement planning: Selection of handgrips for object manipulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18(5), 1058–1073.PubMedCrossRef

Rosenbaum, D. A., Vaughan, J., Jorgensen, M. J., Barnes, H. J., & Stewart, E. (1993). Plans for object manipulation. In D. E. Meyer & S. Kornblum (Ed.), Attention and performance XIV—a silver jubilee: Synergies in experimental psychology, artificial intelligence and cognitive neuroscience (pp. 803–820). Cambridge: MIT Press/Bradford Books.

Schütz, C., Weigelt, M., Odekerken, D., Klein-Soetebier, & Schack, T. (in press). Motor control strategies in a continuous task space. Motor Control.

Short, M. W., & Cauraugh, J. H. (1999). Precision hypothesis and the end-state comfort effect. Acta Psychologica, 100(3), 243–252.PubMedCrossRef

Soechting, J. F., Buneo, C. A., Herrmann, U., & Flanders, M. (1995). Moving effortlessly in three dimensions: Does donders’ law apply to arm movement? Journal of Neuroscience, 15, 6271–6280.PubMed

Steenbergen, B., Hulstijn, W., & Dortmans, S. (2000). Constraints on grip selection in cerebral palsy: Minimising discomfort. Experimental Brain Research, 134, 385–397.CrossRef

Thibaut, J.-P., & Toussaint, L. (2010). Developing motor planning over ages. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 105(1–2), 116–129.PubMedCrossRef

Todorov, E. (2004). Optimality principles in sensorimotor control. Nature Review Neuroscience, 7(9), 907–915.CrossRef

van der Vaart, A. J. M., (1995). Arm movements in operating rotary control (Doctoral thesis, Technische Universiteit Delft, Delft, The Netherlands). http://repository.tudelft.nl/assets/uuid:20033739-71d9-42a4-bc3e-058d78ab8cec/ide_vaart_19950616.PDF.

van Swieten, L. M., van Bergen, E., Williams, J. H., Wilson, A. D., Plumb, M. S., Kent, S. W., et al. (2010). A test of motor (not executive) planning in developmental coordination disorder and autism. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36(2), 493–499.PubMedCrossRef

Weigelt, M., Rosenbaum, D. A., Huelshorst, S., & Schack, T. (2009). Moving and memorizing: Motor planning modulates the recency effect in serial and free recall. Acta Psychologica, 132(1), 68–79.PubMedCrossRef

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 (Saguinus oedipus). Psychological Science, 18(12), 1063–1068.PubMedCrossRef

Wolpert, D. M., & Ghahramani, Z. (2000). Computational principles of movement neuroscience. Nature Neuroscience, 3, 1212–1217.PubMedCrossRef

Zhang, W., & Rosenbaum, D. A. (2008). Planning for manual positioning: The end-state comfort effect for manual abduction-adduction. Experimental Brain Research, 184, 383–389.CrossRef

Titel: The continuous end-state comfort effect: weighted integration of multiple biases
Auteurs: Oliver Herbort
Martin V. Butz
Publicatiedatum: 01-05-2012
Uitgeverij: Springer-Verlag
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 3/2012
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-011-0334-7

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 3/2012

An attentional approach to study mental representations of different parts of the hand

Consistent left gaze bias in processing different facial cues

The effects of alerting signals in action control: activation of S–R associations or inhibition of executive control processes?

Eye movements as a gatekeeper for memorization: evidence for the persistence of attentional sets in visual memory search

Evaluative conditioning may occur with and without contingency awareness

Sequence effects by non-predictive arrow cues