Getting hold of approaching objects: In search of a common control of hand-closure initiation in catching and grasping

Kamp, Cornelis van de; Bongers, Raoul M.; Zaal, Frank T. J. M.

doi:10.1016/j.humov.2010.02.010

Cited by 4 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Fig 4 shows the average normalized MCP joint velocity in the T 1 conditions as a function of time to contact. In accordance with previous reports [ 4 , 35 ], there were two distinct hand movement phases. In the first phase, the fingers opened and the angular velocity of the MCP joint presented positive values (as joint angle values increased with joint extension).…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 93%

“…The initiation of the grasping movement changed depending on the ball arrival height but no significant variation with ball flight duration was observed ( Table 2 ). These results are in accordance with many previous studies on prehension in catching [ 1 , 3 – 5 , 7 , 9 , 10 , 35 – 37 ].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 94%

“…An open question in the study of visuomotor coordination is whether the control of interceptive actions relies on model-based predictive processes or on continuous on-line visual guidance [ 38 , 39 ]. The latter hypothesis postulates that the control of the grasping behavior in a one-handed catching involves the perceptual measure of the remaining time-to-contact [ 35 , 37 ]. Above all the possibilities (see [ 40 ] for a review) the inverse of the rate of expansion, τ [ 41 ], has been considered the primary source of information used to trigger the hand closure initiation [ 35 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Grasping in One-Handed Catching in Relation to Performance

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Catching a flying ball involves bringing the hand to the aimed interception point at the right time, adjusting the hand posture to receive the incoming ball and to absorb the ball momentum, and closing the hand to ensure a stable grip. A small error in any of these actions can lead to a failure in catching the ball. Here we sought to gather new insights on what aspects of the catching movements affect the interceptive performance most. In particular, we wondered whether the errors occurred in bringing the hand to the interception point or in closing the fingers on the ball, and whether these two phases of interception differed between individuals. To this end, we characterized grasping and wrist movement kinematics of eleven participants attempting to catch a ball projected in space with different ball arrival heights and flight durations. The spatial position of the ball and of several markers placed on the participant’s arm were recorded by a motion capture system, the hand joint angles were recorded with an instrumented glove, and several movement features were extracted. All participants were able to intercept the ball trajectory (i.e. to touch the ball) in over 90% of cases, but they differed in the ability to grasp the ball (success rate varied between 2% and 85%). Similar temporal features were observed across individuals when they caught the ball. In particular, all participants adapted their wrist movements under varying temporal and arrival height constraints, they aligned the time of peak hand closing velocity to the time of hand-ball contact, and they maintained the same hand closing duration in the different experimental conditions. These movement features characterized successful trials, and hence allowed to evaluate the possible sources of errors underlying unsuccessful trials. Thus, inter-individual and inter-trial variability in the modulation of each kinematic feature were related to catching performance. We observed that different participants used different solutions to bring the hand to the interception point. In particular the value of the wrist velocity at impact distinguished good from poor catchers. However, each individual showed similar wrist kinematics in grasped and touched trials. We also found that specific grasping features predicted the catching outcome, both on a trial-by-trial basis and across individuals of different performance level. A higher speed of hand closing distinguished touched from grasped trials. A proper triggering of the enclosing phase of the grasping movement and an accurate alignment of the peak of the hand closing speed to the impact event predicted the catching performance of different participants. These results indicate that the control of the grasping movement was the main source of errors affecting catching performance in our experiments. Moreover, these results suggest that distinct temporal and spatial features in the coordination of the grasping movement are related to individual catching abilities.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 94%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Grasping in One-Handed Catching in Relation to Performance

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other sources of information about (motion in) depth such as binocular disparity and retinal size also play a role in this timing (van der Kamp et al 1997). Despite differences between the sources of information and between the way in which the distance between target and hand is reduced (actively in grasping, passively in catching), the timing of events is remarkably similar (van de Kamp et al 2010). Not only the temporal, but also the spatial aspects of the digits' trajectories are very similar when grasping stationary and moving objects (Schot et al 2011).…”

Section: Moving Targetsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reach-to-Grasp Behavior

Corbetta

Santello²

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Despite differences between the sources of information and between the way in which the distance between target and hand is reduced (actively in grasping, passively in catching), the timing of events is remarkably similar (van de Kamp et al 2010). Not only the temporal, but also the spatial aspects of the digits' trajectories are very similar when grasping stationary and moving objects (Schot et al 2011).…”

Section: Moving Targetsmentioning

confidence: 99%