The effect of endpoint congruency on bimanual transport and rotation tasks

The completion of many goal oriented skills requires the tight coordination of the right and left hands to achieve the task objective. Although the coordination of wrist transport and orientation of the hand before object contact has been studied in detail for discrete bimanual tasks, as yet, very few studies have examined bimanual coordination when the target is already in hand. It has been shown that congruency of the goal facilitates the production of discrete bimanual responses. The purpose of this study was to investigate the role of goal congruency on precision bimanual transport and rotate tasks. In the current investigation, participants transported two cubic objects while rotating them laterally to place them into tight-fitting targets. The magnitude of the rotation could be the same for both hands (i.e., both 45 or 90∘) or different (i.e., one 45 and 90∘) and the endpoint orientations (i.e., goal) could either be congruent or incongruent. Results indicated that when the endpoint orientation was congruent for the two hands, movement times were similar regardless of hand (left or right), rotation magnitude (45, 90∘) and whether the rotation magnitude for the two hands was the same or different. These results suggest that congruency of the endpoint goal facilitates the temporal synchronization of the transport component for two limbs. In contrast, a different pattern of results was obtained when considering the rotation component. Specifically, regardless of whether the hands were rotating the same magnitude or ending in congruent endpoint positions, the coordination of the rotation component between the hands was asynchronous. We hypothesize that the greater requirement to shift visual fixation from one hand/target to the other to ascertain the separate goal orientations may explain these differences. These results provide further evidence that multiple constraints act to influence the performance of skilled bimanual tasks.

[1]  David F Stodden,et al.  The End-State Comfort Effect in Bimanual Grip Selection , 2003, Research quarterly for exercise and sport.

[2]  Andrea H Mason,et al.  Manual asymmetries in bimanual prehension tasks: manipulation of object size and object distance. , 2009, Human movement science.

[3]  M. Weigelt,et al.  Goal congruency without stimulus congruency in bimanual coordination , 2009, Psychological research.

[4]  W. Prinz,et al.  End-state comfort in bimanual object manipulation. , 2006, Experimental psychology.

[5]  M. Bryden Measuring handedness with questionnaires , 1977, Neuropsychologia.

[6]  H N Zelaznik,et al.  Spatial Conceptual Influences on the Coordination of Bimanual Actions: When a Dual Task Becomes a Single Task , 2001, Journal of motor behavior.

[7]  A. Opstal Dynamic Patterns: The Self-Organization of Brain and Behavior , 1995 .

[8]  Charmayne M. L. Hughes,et al.  Physically coupling two objects in a bimanual task alters kinematics but not end-state comfort , 2011, Experimental Brain Research.

[9]  H N Zelaznik,et al.  Spatial topological constraints in a bimanual task. , 1991, Acta psychologica.

[10]  G. Rizzolatti,et al.  Influence of different types of grasping on the transport component of prehension movements , 1991, Neuropsychologia.

[11]  Wilfried Kunde,et al.  Goal congruency in bimanual object manipulation. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[12]  B J McFadyen,et al.  Visuomotor control when reaching toward and grasping moving targets. , 1996, Acta psychologica.

[13]  B. Martin,et al.  Eye–hand coordination of symmetric bimanual reaching tasks: temporal aspects , 2010, Experimental Brain Research.

[14]  B. Martin,et al.  Does the central nervous system learn to plan bimanual movements based on its expectation of availability of visual feedback? , 2012, Human movement science.

[15]  B. Steenbergen,et al.  Combined effects of planning and execution constraints on bimanual task performance , 2008, Experimental Brain Research.

[16]  Frank Marchak,et al.  Constraints for Action Selection: Overhand Versus Underhand Grips , 2018, Attention and Performance XIII.

[17]  A. H. Mason,et al.  Coordination and concurrency in bimanual rotation tasks when moving away from and toward the body , 2007, Experimental Brain Research.

[18]  Jörn Diedrichsen,et al.  Bimanual interference associated with the selection of target locations. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[19]  Andrea H. Mason,et al.  Coordination and control of bimanual prehension: effects of perturbing object location , 2008, Experimental Brain Research.

[20]  D Goodman,et al.  On the nature of human interlimb coordination. , 1979, Science.

[21]  Geoffrey P. Bingham,et al.  The coordination patterns observed when two hands reach-to-grasp separate objects , 2007, Experimental Brain Research.

[22]  Gavan Lintern,et al.  Dynamic patterns: The self-organization of brain and behavior , 1997, Complex.

[23]  E. Franz,et al.  Goal-related planning constraints in bimanual grasping and placing of objects , 2008, Experimental Brain Research.

[24]  M Husain,et al.  The coordination of bimanual prehension movements in a centrally deafferented patient. , 2000, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[25]  H. Freund,et al.  Different coupling for the reach and grasp components in bimanual prehension movements , 2000, Neuroreport.

[26]  John M. Huhn,et al.  Symmetries in action: on the interactive nature of planning constraints for bimanual object manipulation , 2014, Experimental Brain Research.