Why does an obstacle just below the digits’ paths not influence a grasping movement while an obstacle to the side of their paths does?

A review of grasping as the movements of digits in space

It is tempting to describe human reach-to-grasp movements in terms of two, more or less independent visuomotor channels, one relating hand transport to the object’s location and the other relating grip aperture to the object’s size. Our review of experimental work questions this framework for reasons that go beyond noting the dependence between the two channels. Both the lack of effect of size illusions on grip aperture and the finding that the variability in grip aperture does not depend on the object’s size indicate that size information is not used to control grip aperture. An alternative is to describe grip formation as emerging from controlling the movements of the digits in space. Each digit’s trajectory when grasping an object is remarkably similar to its trajectory when moving to tap the same position on its own. The similarity is also evident in the fast responses when the object is displaced. This review develops a new description of the speed-accuracy trade-off for multiple effectors that is applied to grasping. The most direct support for the digit-in-space framework is that prism-induced adaptation of each digit’s tapping movements transfers to that digit’s movements when grasping, leading to changes in grip aperture for adaptation in opposite directions for the two digits. We conclude that although grip aperture and hand transport are convenient variables to describe grasping, treating grasping as movements of the digits in space is a more suitable basis for understanding the neural control of grasping.

Binocular advantage for prehension movements performed in visually enriched environments requiring visual search

The purpose of this study was to examine the role of binocular vision during a prehension task performed in a visually enriched environment where the target object was surrounded by distractors/obstacles. Fifteen adults reached and grasped for a cylindrical peg while eye movements and upper limb kinematics were recorded. The complexity of the visual environment was manipulated by varying the number of distractors and by varying the saliency of the target. Gaze behavior (i.e., the latency of the primary gaze shift and frequency of gaze shifts prior to reach initiation) was comparable between viewing conditions. In contrast, a binocular advantage was evident in performance accuracy. Specifically, participants picked up the wrong object twice as often during monocular viewing when the complexity of the environment increased. Reach performance was more efficient during binocular viewing, which was demonstrated by shorter reach reaction time and overall movement time. Reaching movements during the approach phase had higher peak velocity during binocular viewing. During monocular viewing reach trajectories exhibited a direction bias during the acceleration phase, which was leftward during left eye viewing and rightward during right eye viewing. This bias can be explained by the presence of esophoria in the covered eye. The grasping interval was also extended by ~20% during monocular viewing; however, the duration of the return phase after the target was picked up was comparable across viewing conditions. In conclusion, binocular vision provides important input for planning and execution of prehension movements in visually enriched environments. Binocular advantage was evident, regardless of set size or target saliency, indicating that adults plan their movements more cautiously during monocular viewing, even in relatively simple environments with a highly salient target. Nevertheless, in visually-normal adults monocular input provides sufficient information to engage in online control to correct the initial errors in movement planning.

Hitting a target is fundamentally different from avoiding obstacles

To successfully move our hand to a target, it is important not only to consider the target of our movements but also to consider other objects in the environment that may act as obstacles. We previously found that the time needed to respond to a change in position was considerably longer for a displacement of an obstacle than for a displacement of the target (Aivar, Brenner, & Smeets, 2008. Experimental Brain Research 190, 251-264). In that study, the movement constraints imposed by the obstacles differed from those imposed by the target. To examine whether the latency is really different for targets and obstacles, irrespective of any constraints they impose, we modified the design of the previous experiment to make sure that the constraints were matched. In each trial, two aligned 'objects' of the same size were presented at different distances to the left of the initial position of the hand. Each of these objects could either be a target or a gap (opening between two obstacles). Participants were instructed to pass through both objects. All possible combinations of these two objects were tested: gap-target, target-gap, gap-gap, target-target. On some trials one of the objects changed position after movement onset. Participants systematically responded faster to the displacement of a target than to the displacement of a gap at the same location. We conclude that targets are prioritized over obstacles in movement control.