Internal models underlying fingertip force control during object manipulation in humans

Transfer and generalization of learned manipulation between unimanual and bimanual tasks

Successful object manipulation, such as preventing object roll, relies on the modulation of forces and centers of pressure (point of application of digits on each grasp surface) prior to lift onset to generate a compensatory torque. Whether or not generalization of learned manipulation can occur after adding or removing effectors is not known. We examined this by recruiting participants to perform lifts in unimanual and bimanual grasps and analyzed results before and after transfer. Our results show partial generalization of learned manipulation occurred when switching from a (1) unimanual to bimanual grasp regardless of object center of mass, and (2) bimanual to unimanual grasp when the center of mass was on the thumb side. Partial generalization was driven by the modulation of effectors' center of pressure, in the appropriate direction but of insufficient magnitude, while load forces did not contribute to torque generation after transfer. In addition, we show that the combination of effector forces and centers of pressure in the generation of compensatory torque differ between unimanual and bimanual grasping. These findings highlight that (1) high-level representations of learned manipulation enable only partial learning transfer when adding or removing effectors, and (2) such partial generalization is mainly driven by modulation of effectors' center of pressure.

Hand forces and placement are modulated and covary during anticipatory control of bimanual manipulation

Dexterous object manipulation relies on the feedforward and feedback control of kinetics (forces) and kinematics (hand shaping and digit placement). Lifting objects with an uneven mass distribution involves the generation of compensatory moments at object lift-off to counter object torques. This is accomplished through the modulation and covariation of digit forces and placement, which has been shown to be a general feature of unimanual manipulation. These feedforward anticipatory processes occur before performance-specific feedback. Whether this adaptation is a feature unique to unimanual dexterous manipulation or general across unimanual and bimanual manipulation is not known. We investigated the generation of compensatory moments through hand placement and force modulation during bimanual manipulation of an object with variable center of mass. Participants were instructed to prevent object roll during the lift. Similar to unimanual grasping, we found modulation and covariation of hand forces and placement for successful performance. Thus this motor adaptation of the anticipatory control of compensatory moment is a general feature across unimanual and bimanual effectors. Our results highlight the involvement of high-level representation of manipulation goals and underscore a sensorimotor circuitry for anticipatory control through a continuum of force and placement modulation of object manipulation across a range of effectors.

NEW & NOTEWORTHY This is the first study, to our knowledge, to show that successful bimanual manipulation of objects with asymmetrical centers of mass is performed through the modulation and covariation of hand forces and placements to generate compensatory moments. Digit force-to-placement modulation is thus a general phenomenon across multiple effectors, such as the fingers of one hand, and both hands. This adds to our understanding of integrating low-level internal representations of object properties into high-level task representations.

Visual Cues of Object Properties Differentially Affect Anticipatory Planning of Digit Forces and Placement

Studies on anticipatory planning of object manipulation showed initial task failure (i.e., object roll) when visual object shape cues are incongruent with other visual cues, such as weight distribution/density (e.g., symmetrically shaped object with an asymmetrical density). This suggests that shape cues override density cues. However, these studies typically only measured forces, with digit placement constrained. Recent evidence suggests that when digit placement is unconstrained, subjects modulate digit forces and placement. Thus, unconstrained digit placement might be modulated on initial trials (since it is an explicit process), but not forces (since it is an implicit process). We tested whether shape and density cues would differentially influence anticipatory planning of digit placement and forces during initial trials of a two-digit object manipulation task. Furthermore, we tested whether shape cues would override density cues when cues are incongruent. Subjects grasped and lifted an object with the aim of preventing roll. In Experiment 1, the object was symmetrically shaped, but with asymmetrical density (incongruent cues). In Experiment 2, the object was asymmetrical in shape and density (congruent cues). In Experiment 3, the object was asymmetrically shaped, but with symmetrical density (incongruent cues). Results showed differential modulation of digit placement and forces (modulation of load force but not placement), but only when shape and density cues were congruent. When shape and density cues were incongruent, we found collinear digit placement and symmetrical force sharing. This suggests that congruent and incongruent shape and density cues differentially influence anticipatory planning of digit forces and placement. Furthermore, shape cues do not always override density cues. A continuum of visual cues, such as those alluding to shape and density, need to be integrated.

Generalization of Dexterous Manipulation Is Sensitive to the Frame of Reference in Which It Is Learned

Studies have shown that internal representations of manipulations of objects with asymmetric mass distributions that are generated within a specific orientation are not generalizable to novel orientations, i.e., subjects fail to prevent object roll on their first grasp-lift attempt of the object following 180° object rotation. This suggests that representations of these manipulations are specific to the reference frame in which they are formed. However, it is unknown whether that reference frame is specific to the hand, the body, or both, because rotating the object 180° modifies the relation between object and body as well as object and hand. An alternative, untested explanation for the above failure to generalize learned manipulations is that any rotation will disrupt grasp performance, regardless if the reference frame in which the manipulation was learned is maintained or modified. We examined the effect of rotations that (1) maintain and (2) modify relations between object and body, and object and hand, on the generalizability of learned two-digit manipulation of an object with an asymmetric mass distribution. Following rotations that maintained the relation between object and body and object and hand (e.g., rotating the object and subject 180°), subjects continued to use appropriate digit placement and load force distributions, thus generating sufficient compensatory moments to minimize object roll. In contrast, following rotations that modified the relation between (1) object and hand (e.g. rotating the hand around to the opposite object side), (2) object and body (e.g. rotating subject and hand 180°), or (3) both (e.g. rotating the subject 180°), subjects used the same, yet inappropriate digit placement and load force distribution, as those used prior to the rotation. Consequently, the compensatory moments were insufficient to prevent large object rolls. These findings suggest that representations of learned manipulation of objects with asymmetric mass distributions are specific to the body- and hand-reference frames in which they were learned.

Manipulation after object rotation reveals independent sensorimotor memory representations of digit positions and forces

Planning of object manipulations is dependent on the ability to generate, store, and retrieve sensorimotor memories of previous actions associated with grasped objects. However, the sensorimotor memory representations linking object properties to the planning of grasp are not well understood. Here we use an object rotation task to gain insight into the mechanisms underlying the nature of these sensorimotor memories. We asked subjects to grasp a grip device with an asymmetrical center of mass (CM) anywhere on its vertical surfaces and lift it while minimizing object roll. After subjects learned to minimize object roll by generating a compensatory moment, they were asked to rotate the object 180 degrees about a vertical axis and lift it again. The rotation resulted in changing the direction of external moment opposite to that experienced during the prerotation block. Anticipatory grasp control was quantified by measuring the compensatory moment generated at object lift onset by thumb and index finger forces through their respective application points. On the first postrotation trial, subjects failed to generate a compensatory moment to counter the external moment caused by the new CM location, thus resulting in a large object roll. Nevertheless, after several object rotations subjects reduced object roll on the initial postrotation trials by anticipating the new CM location through the modulation of digit placement but not tangential forces. The differential improvement in modulating these two variables supports the notion of independent memory representations of kinematics and kinetics and is discussed in relation to neural mechanisms underlying visuomotor transformations.