Reaching beyond spatial perception: Effects of intended future actions on visually guided prehension

Three experiments examined whether manipulating actors' intentions, regarding forthcoming actions, influences the time course and kinematics of visually guided, reach‐to‐grasp movements. Subjects performed two‐step action sequences where the initial movement always involved reaching for and grasping cubes located at a constant distance. Demands of the second movement were systematically manipulated. Although the spatial parameters (cube size and distance) remained constant across all conditions, the durations of the initial movements differed substantially depending on the actions subjects intended to perform once the objects were in hand. Less time was required to engage a small (1 cm3) cube when the intention was to transport it to a new location on the workspace vs. a large (4 cm3) cube when the goal was to merely lift it above its current resting position (Experiment 1). This difference in duration of the initial movement reflects more time spent in the deceleration phase of the reach when the task does not require transporting the cube to a new location on the workspace. Further, this context effect is not related to accuracy demands (Experiment 2), or complexity (Experiment 3) of the intended second movement. These findings demonstrate that actions are determined both by the perceived spatial demands of the immediate movement as well as the intended goal of the entire action sequence.

[1]  P. Fitts The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. , 1954, Journal of experimental psychology.

[2]  R. C. Oldfield The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. , 1971, Neuropsychologia.

[3]  D. Chaffin,et al.  An investigation of fitts' law using a wide range of movement amplitudes. , 1976, Journal of motor behavior.

[4]  S. T. Klapp,et al.  Motor programming within a sequence of responses. , 1976, Journal of motor behavior.

[5]  S T Klapp,et al.  Programmed control of aimed movements revisited the role of target visibility and symmetry. , 1979, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[6]  Michael A. Arbib,et al.  Perceptual Structures and Distributed Motor Control , 1981 .

[7]  Donald A. Norman,et al.  Simulating a Skilled Typist: A Study of Skilled Cognitive-Motor Performance , 1982, Cogn. Sci..

[8]  E. R. Crossman,et al.  Feedback Control of Hand-Movement and Fitts' Law , 1983, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[9]  Gerard P. van Galen,et al.  Structural complexity of motor patterns: A study on reaction times and movement times of handwritten letters , 1984 .

[10]  K. J. Cole,et al.  Control of multimovement coordination: sensorimotor mechanisms in speech motor programming. , 1984, Journal of motor behavior.

[11]  T. Flash,et al.  The coordination of arm movements: an experimentally confirmed mathematical model , 1985, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[12]  C. Atkeson,et al.  Kinematic features of unrestrained vertical arm movements , 1985, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[13]  K. J. Cole,et al.  Coordination of three-joint digit movements for rapid finger-thumb grasp. , 1986, Journal of neurophysiology.

[14]  M. Jeannerod,et al.  Constraints on human arm movement trajectories. , 1987, Canadian journal of psychology.

[15]  Gerard P. van Galen,et al.  Levels of Motor Programming in Writing Familiar and Unfamiliar Symbols , 1988 .

[16]  S. Lehman The Neural and Behavioural Organization of Goal‐Directed Movements , 1990, Neurology.

[17]  D. Rosenbaum,et al.  Planning macroscopic aspects of manual control , 1992 .

[18]  D. Rosenbaum,et al.  Time course of movement planning: selection of handgrips for object manipulation. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[19]  Umberto Castiello,et al.  Insights into the reach to grasp movement , 1994 .

[20]  M. Jeannerod The representing brain: Neural correlates of motor intention and imagery , 1994, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[21]  Hiroshi Sekiya,et al.  Movement variability as a function of accuracy demand in programmed serial aiming responses , 1995 .

[22]  M. Gentilucci,et al.  Planning for action , 2020, Coaching with Research in Mind.

[23]  M. E. McCarty,et al.  Problem solving in infancy: the emergence of an action plan. , 1999, Developmental psychology.

[24]  M. Mon-Williams,et al.  A test between two hypotheses and a possible third way for the control of prehension , 2000, Experimental Brain Research.

[25]  S. Iversen Motor control , 2000, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[26]  M. E. McCarty,et al.  The Beginnings of Tool Use by Infants and Toddlers , 2001 .

[27]  C. MacKenzie,et al.  The speed-accuracy trade-off in manual prehension: effects of movement amplitude, object size and object width on kinematic characteristics , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.

[28]  J. F. Soechting,et al.  Effect of target size on spatial and temporal characteristics of a pointing movement in man , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.