Movement paths in operating hand-held tools: tests of distal-shift hypotheses.

Extending the body with a tool could imply that characteristics of hand movements become characteristics of the movement of the effective part of the tool. Recent research suggests that such distal shifts are subject to boundary conditions. Here we propose the existence of three constraints: a strategy constraint, a constraint of movement characteristics, and a constraint of mode of control. We investigate their validity for the curvature of transverse movements aimed at a target while using a sliding first-order lever. Participants moved the tip of the effort arm of a real or virtual lever to control a cursor representing movements of the tip of the load arm of the lever on a monitor. With this tool, straight transverse hand movements are associated with concave curvature of the path of the tip of the tool. With terminal visual feedback and when targets were presented for the hand, hand paths were slightly concave in the absence of the dynamic transformation of the tool and slightly convex in its presence. When targets were presented for the tip of the lever, both the concave and convex curvatures of the hand paths became stronger. Finally, with continuous visual feedback of the tip of the lever, curvature of hand paths became convex and concave curvature of the paths of the tip of the lever was reduced. In addition, the effect of the dynamic transformation on curvature was attenuated. These findings support the notion that distal shifts are subject to at least the three proposed constraints.

[1]  M. Tanaka,et al.  Coding of modified body schema during tool use by macaque postcentral neurones. , 1996, Neuroreport.

[2]  M. Kawato,et al.  Adaptation to Stable and Unstable Dynamics Achieved By Combined Impedance Control and Inverse Dynamics Model , 2003 .

[3]  Alessandro Farnè,et al.  Grab an object with a tool and change your body: tool-use-dependent changes of body representation for action , 2012, Experimental Brain Research.

[4]  Herbert Heuer,et al.  Trajectories in operating a handheld tool. , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[5]  R. Bongers,et al.  Joint angle variability and co-variation in a reaching with a rod task , 2010, Experimental Brain Research.

[6]  Herbert Heuer,et al.  Learning the visuomotor transformation of virtual and real sliding levers: simple approximations of complex transformations , 2009, Experimental Brain Research.

[7]  H. Heuer,et al.  The influence of the dynamic transformation of a sliding lever on aiming errors , 2012, Neuroscience.

[8]  J R Flanagan,et al.  Trajectory adaptation to a nonlinear visuomotor transformation: evidence of motion planning in visually perceived space. , 1995, Journal of neurophysiology.

[9]  H. Heuer.  Fast aiming movements with the left and right arm: Evidence for two-process theories of motor control , 1981, Psychological research.

[10]  H. Cruse,et al.  The human arm as a redundant manipulator: The control of path and joint angles , 2004, Biological Cybernetics.

[11]  Nicholas P. Holmes,et al.  Tool-Use: Capturing Multisensory Spatial Attention or Extending Multisensory Peripersonal Space? , 2007, Cortex.

[12]  Martina Rieger,et al.  Internal Models and Body Schema in Tool Use , 2012 .

[13]  Herbert Heuer,et al.  Enhanced mechanical transparency during practice impedes open-loop control of a complex tool , 2012, Experimental Brain Research.

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

[15]  Herbert Heuer,et al.  Type of visual feedback during practice influences the precision of the acquired internal model of a complex visuo-motor transformation , 2011, Ergonomics.

[16]  A. Berti,et al.  When Far Becomes Near: Remapping of Space by Tool Use , 2000, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[17]  W. Verwey,et al.  The effect of continuous, nonlinearly transformed visual feedback on rapid aiming movements , 2008, Experimental Brain Research.

[18]  Michael I. Jordan,et al.  Constrained and unconstrained movements involve different control strategies. , 1997, Journal of neurophysiology.

[19]  Daniel M. Wolpert,et al.  Making smooth moves , 2022 .

[20]  D. Rosenbaum,et al.  Limb position drift: implications for control of posture and movement. , 2003, Journal of neurophysiology.

[21]  A. Gallagher,et al.  An ergonomic analysis of the fulcrum effect in the acquisition of endoscopic skills. , 1998, Endoscopy.

[22]  J Richardson,et al.  Spatial patterns in the control of human arm movement. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[23]  E. Bizzi,et al.  Human arm trajectory formation. , 1982, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[24]  W. Epstein,et al.  Tool use affects perceived distance, but only when you intend to use it. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[25]  G. Aschersleben,et al.  The Theory of Event Coding (TEC): a framework for perception and action planning. , 2001, The Behavioral and brain sciences.

[26]  A. Maravita,et al.  Tools for the body (schema) , 2004, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[27]  D M Wolpert,et al.  Multiple paired forward and inverse models for motor control , 1998, Neural Networks.

[28]  Herbert Heuer,et al.  The trajectory of adaptation to the visuo-motor transformation of virtual and real sliding levers , 2009, Experimental Brain Research.

[29]  Herbert Heuer,et al.  Adaptation to novel visuo-motor transformations: further evidence of functional haptic neglect , 2012, Experimental Brain Research.

[30]  W. Prinz.  Perception and Action Planning , 1997 .

[31]  Jörn Diedrichsen,et al.  Reach adaptation: what determines whether we learn an internal model of the tool or adapt the model of our arm? , 2008, Journal of neurophysiology.

[32]  J. Lackner,et al.  Motor adaptation to Coriolis force perturbations of reaching movements: endpoint but not trajectory adaptation transfers to the nonexposed arm. , 1995, Journal of neurophysiology.

[33]  Mathias Hegele,et al.  Constraints on visuo-motor adaptation depend on the type of visual feedback during practice , 2008, Experimental Brain Research.

[34]  P. Morasso.  Spatial control of arm movements , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.

[35]  Gregor Schöner,et al.  The uncontrolled manifold concept: identifying control variables for a functional task , 1999, Experimental Brain Research.

[36]  宇野 洋二,et al.  Formation and control of optimal trajectory in human multijoint arm movement : minimum torque-change model , 1988 .

[37]  R. Sainburg,et al.  Interlimb transfer of visuomotor rotations: independence of direction and final position information , 2002, Experimental Brain Research.

[38]  W Hulstijn,et al.  Path curvature in workspace and in joint space: evidence for coexisting coordinative rules in aiming. , 1998, Motor control.

[39]  A. Bahill,et al.  Determining ideal baseball bat weights using muscle force-velocity relationships , 1989, Biological Cybernetics.

[40]  S. Kitazawa,et al.  Sensation at the tips of invisible tools , 2001, Nature Neuroscience.

[41]  Wolfgang Prinz,et al.  Why don't we perceive our brain states? , 1992 .

[42]  Catherine L. Reed,et al.  Grab it! Biased attention in functional hand and tool space , 2010, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[43]  Michael I. Jordan,et al.  Are Reaching Movements Planned to be Straight and Invariant in the Extrinsic Space? Kinematic Comparison between Compliant and Unconstrained Motions , 1999 .

[44]  Michael I. Jordan.  Computational aspects of motor control and motor learning , 2008 .

[45]  J. Müsseler,et al.  Perceiving one’s own movements when using a tool , 2009, Consciousness and Cognition.

[46]  Michael I. Jordan,et al.  Perceptual distortion contributes to the curvature of human reaching movements , 1994, Experimental Brain Research.

[47]  Borís Burle,et al.  Direct evidence for cortical suppression of somatosensory afferents during visuomotor adaptation. , 2009, Cerebral cortex.

[48]  Martin Burghoff,et al.  Visuo-motor adaptation: evidence for a distributed amplitude control system , 1997, Behavioural Brain Research.

[49]  J. Hoffmann,et al.  Anticipated Action Effects Affect the Selection, Initiation, and Execution of Actions , 2004, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

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

[51]  Cristina Massen,et al.  12 Motor Control , 2012 .

[52]  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.

[53]  J. M. Hollerbach,et al.  Deducing planning variables from experimental arm trajectories: Pitfalls and possibilities , 1987, Biological Cybernetics.

[54]  G. Holmes,et al.  Sensory disturbances from cerebral lesions , 1911 .

[55]  B. Röder,et al.  Action goal selection and motor planning can be dissociated by tool use , 2008, Cognition.

[56]  E. Todorov.  Optimality principles in sensorimotor control , 2004, Nature Neuroscience.

[57]  Herbert Heuer,et al.  Nonlinear visuomotor transformations: Locus and modularity , 2007, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[58]  Michael I. Jordan,et al.  Are arm trajectories planned in kinematic or dynamic coordinates? An adaptation study , 1995, Experimental Brain Research.

[59]  Psychologische Rundschau.  Antezedente Effektrepräsentationen in der Verhaltenssteuerung , 2005 .

[60]  M. Kawato,et al.  Formation and control of optimal trajectory in human multijoint arm movement , 1989, Biological Cybernetics.