A geometric and dynamic affordance model of reaches-to-grasp: Men take greater risks than women.

Abstract

eprints@whiterose.ac.uk https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ Reuse Unless indicated otherwise, fulltext items are protected by copyright with all rights reserved. The copyright exception in section 29 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 allows the making of a single copy solely for the purpose of non-commercial research or private study within the limits of fair dealing. The publisher or other rights-holder may allow further reproduction and re-use of this version -refer to the White Rose Research Online record for this item. Where records identify the publisher as the copyright holder, users can verify any specific terms of use on the publisher's website. TakedownIf you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing eprints@whiterose.ac.uk including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. 1984) geometric affordance scaling model with a dynamical component determined by the stability of the motor performance. Because P was found to vary with the speeds of reaches, we incorporated a measure of the variability of performance into the model to yield predictions of P. We also found that P varied with gender. In respect to the size of safety margins, women were more conservative in taking risks then men. Finally, following Warren (1984), the classic paradigm for testing affordance models is to test the scaling relations with both small and large participants. We tested small and large handed men and small and large handed women and found that the new parameter free model successfully accounted for the spatial structure of reaches-to-grasp.

Using task dynamics to quantify the affordances of throwing for long distance and accuracy.

“…Affordances are perceptible, task specific, organism-relative properties of objects and events; not “how large is that object?” but “can the object be grasped by me?” or “can the object be stepped over by me?” (Gibson, 1979; Turvey, Shaw, Reed, & Mace, 1981). Affordances have been studied in a variety of contexts, including locomotion (e.g., Adolph, Eppler, & Gibson, 1993; Fajen, 2007; Snapp-Childs & Bingham, 2009; Warren, 1984; Warren & Whang, 1987), prehension (e.g., Bingham & Muchisky, 1993a, 1993b; Mark et al, 1997; Mon-Williams & Bingham, 2011; Bingham, Snapp-Childs, Fath, Pan, & Coats, 2014), bouncing a ball on a racquet (e.g., Schaal, Atkeson, & Sternad, 1996; Siegler, Bazile & Warren, 2013; Sternad, Duarte, Katsumata, & Schaal, 2001), and interception (e.g., Fink, Foo, & Warren, 2009; Oudejans, Michaels, Bakker, & Dolné, 1996). More recent work has investigated the affordances of objects for maximum distance throwing (Bingham, Schmidt, & Rosenblum, 1989; Zhu & Bingham, 2008, 2010; Zhu, Dapena, & Bingham, 2009; Zhu, Mirich, & Bingham, 2014; Zhu, Shockley, Riley, Tolston, & Bingham, 2013).…”

Volitional and automatic control of the hand when reaching to grasp objects.

“…In the current study, we found a relatively small ratio between maximum grip aperture (MGA) and final grip aperture (FGA) of 1.1–1.2, compared with the MGA/FGA ratio of 1.4–1.7 in real grasping tasks (e.g., Eloka & Franz, 2011; Voudouris et al, 2013; Westwood, Danckert, Servos, & Goodale, 2002). Previous studies have also reported smaller MGA/FGA ratios for virtual grasping tasks (Chen & Saunders, 2015, 2016; Westwood et al, 2002), and this finding can be explained by an affordance model (Bingham, Snapp-Childs, Fath, Pan, & Coats, 2014; Mon-Williams, Bingham, 2011), which argues that MGA is an implication of “a safety margin for collision avoidance” and would decrease without the risk of collision.…”