Grasping an object comfortably: orientation information is held in memory

Sensorimotor memories influence movement kinematics but not associated tactile processing

When interacting with objects, we often rely on visual information. However, vision is not always the most reliable sense for determining relevant object properties. For example, when the mass distribution of an object cannot be inferred visually, humans may rely on predictions about the object's dynamics. Such predictions may not only influence motor behavior but also associated processing of movement-related afferent information, leading to reduced tactile sensitivity during movement. We examined whether predictions based on sensorimotor memories influence grasping kinematics and associated tactile processing. Participants lifted an object of unknown mass distribution and reported whether they detected a tactile stimulus on their grasping hand during the lift. In Experiment 1, the mass distribution could change from trial to trial, whereas in Experiment 2, we intermingled longer with shorter parts of constant and variable mass distributions, while also providing implicit or explicit information about the trial structure. In both experiments, participants grasped the object by predictively choosing contact points that would compensate the mass distribution experienced in the previous trial. Tactile suppression during movement, however, was invariant across conditions. These results suggest that predictions based on sensorimotor memories can influence movement kinematics but not associated tactile perception.

Priming of the Sander Parallelogram illusion separates perception from action

The two-visual stream hypothesis posits that the dorsal stream is less susceptible than the ventral stream to the effects of illusions and visual priming. While previous studies have separately examined these perceptual manipulations, the present study combined the effects of a visual illusion and priming to examine the possibility of dorsally guided actions being susceptible to the perceptual stimuli due to interactions between the two streams. Thirty-four participants were primed with a 'long' or 'short' version of the Sander Parallelogram illusion and were asked to either reach out and grasp or manually estimate the length of a rod placed on a version of the illusion that was on some trials the same as the prime (congruent) and on other trials was the inverse (incongruent). Due to the context-focused nature of ventral processing, we predicted that estimations would be more susceptible to the effects of the illusion and priming than grasps. Results showed that while participants' manual estimations were susceptible to both priming and the illusion, the grasps were only affected by the illusion, not by priming. The influence of the illusion on grip aperture was greater during manual estimations than it was during grasping. These findings support the notion that the functionally distinct dorsal and ventral streams interact under the current experimental paradigm. Outcomes of the study help better understand the nature of stimuli that promote interactions between the dorsal and ventral streams.

Anticipatory grasping control modulates somatosensory perception

Somatosensory perception is hampered on the moving limb during a goal-directed movement. This somatosensory suppression is mostly attributed to a forward model that predicts future states of the system based on the established motor command. Here, we examined whether and how this suppression is modulated by the predictability of object features important for controlling a grasping movement. Participants reached to grasp an object between thumb and index finger and then lifted it as straight as possible. Objects with symmetric or asymmetric mass distributions were presented either in a blocked or random manner, so that the object's mass distribution could be anticipated or not. At the moment of object contact, a brief vibrotactile stimulus of varying intensities was presented on the dorsal part of the moving index finger. Participants had to report whether they detected the stimulus. When the object's mass distribution was predictable, contact points with the object were modulated to the object's centre of mass. This modulation contributed to a minimized resultant object roll during lifting. When the object's mass distribution was unpredictable, participants chose a default grasping configuration, resulting in greater object roll for asymmetric mass distributions. Somatosensory perception was hampered when grasping both types of objects compared to baseline (no-movement). Importantly, somatosensory suppression was stronger when participants could predict the object's mass distribution. We suggest that the strength of somatosensory suppression depends on the predictability of movement-relevant object features.

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.

Visuomotor priming of action preparation and motor programming is similar in visually guided and memory-guided actions

The present study examined whether the planning and execution of a reach-to-grasp movement is susceptible to visuomotor priming, and whether the strength of the priming effect depends on the availability of visual feedback. Participants grasped a target object as quickly as possible with either a whole-hand grip or a precision grip upon hearing an auditory stimulus. Prior to the auditory cue, a prime stimulus was presented. The prime stimulus depicted an object that was either congruent, incongruent, or ambiguous with respect to the required grasp, or it showed no object at all. In addition, participants performed the grasping task in one of three vision conditions: participants' vision was either occluded during both the motor programming and online-control phase (no-vision), participants had vision only during the motor programming phase (partial-vision), or they had vision available throughout task performance (full-vision). Results revealed the presence of two discrete priming effects. First, we found a facilitative effect of congruent compared to incongruent prime-grip combinations that influenced reaction times and kinematic parameters. Second, we found that movements were initiated slower during the no prime compared to all other conditions. However, this effect did not affect movement kinematics. Importantly, the size of both effects was similar regardless of vision. Together, these results suggest that visuomotor priming effects exhibit a similar influence on memory-guided and visually guided actions, indicating the same underlying object representations for those actions, and thus further challenging the real-time view of motor programming. Furthermore, the two different priming effects suggest the presence of functionally distinct, yet related modules or processes related to action preparation and motor programming, and hint towards possible ventrodorsal interactions.