Objects can be grasped in different ways to ensure a movement plan is aligned with the intended action. The current study assessed grasp posture in joint action object manipulation in children (ages 6–11, n = 68), young adults (n = 21), and older adults (n = 23). Participants performed two actions (pickup and pass; pickup and pass for use) within two movement contexts (using a dowel as if it were the actual object; actual object use), using two objects (glass and hammer) that differed in use-dependent experience. Beginning-state comfort (prioritizing a comfortable initial hand posture for an object recipient) was assessed. Taken together, findings support the notion that the ability to anticipate the intended action, and thus consider an action partner in one’s action plan, increases with age. With age and use-dependent experience, it can be argued that there is a shift from stimulus-driven, familiar responses, to considering affordances and task demands. Together, findings add to our understanding of changes in motor planning capabilities across the life span.
BelardinelliA.StepperM. Y.ButzM. V. (2016). It’s in the eyes: Planning precise manual actions before execution. Journal of Vision, 16, 18. doi:10.1167/16.1.18
4.
CavillS.BrydenP. (2003). Development of handedness: Comparison of questionnaire and performance-based measures of preference. Brain and Cognition, 53, 149–151. doi:10.1016/S0278-2626(03)00098-8
5.
ClaxtonL. J.McCartyM. E.KeenR. (2009). Self-directed action affects planning in tool-use tasks with toddlers. Infant Behavior and Development, 32, 230–233. doi:10.1016/j.infbeh.2008.12.004
6.
DötschD.SchuböA. (2015). Social categorization and cooperation in motor joint action: Evidence for a joint end-state comfort. Experimental Brain Research, 233, 2323–2334. doi:10.1007/s00221-015-4301-1
7.
EllisR.TuckerM. (2000). Micro-affordance: The potentiation of components of action by seen objects. British Journal of Psychology, 91, 451–471. doi:10.1348/000712600161934
8.
GersonS. A.BekkeringH.HunniusS. (2016). Social context influences planning ahead in three-year-olds. Cognitive Development, 40, 120–131. doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2016.08.010
9.
GibsonE. J. (2000). Perceptual learning in development: Some basic concepts. Ecological Psychology, 12, 295–302. doi:10.1207/S15326969ECO1204_04
10.
GlenbergA. M.SolimanT. (2014). Interpersonal action semantics. Comment on “Action semantics: A unifying conceptual framework for the selective use of multimodal and modality-specific object knowledge” by van Elk, van Schie, & Bekkering. Physics of Life Reviews, 11, 251–252. doi:10.1016/j.plrev.2013.12.005
11.
GonzalezD. A.StudenkaB. E.GlazebrookC. M.LyonsJ. L. (2011). Extending end-state comfort effect: Do we consider the beginning state comfort of another?Acta Psychologica, 136, 347–353. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.12.009
12.
GoodaleM. A.JakobsonL. S.KeillorJ. M. (1994). Differences in the visual control of pantomimed and natural grasping movements. Neuropsychologia, 32, 1159–1178. doi:10.1016/0028-3932(94)90100-7
13.
HayL. (1979). Spatial-temporal analysis of movements in children: Motor programs versus feedback in the development of reaching. Journal of Motor Behavior, 11, 189–200.
14.
HeathM.WestwoodD. A.RoyE. A.YoungR. P. (2002). Manual asymmetries in tool-use: Implications for apraxia. Laterality: Asymmetries of Body, Brain and Cognition, 7, 131–143.
15.
HerbortO.KoningA.van UemJ.MeulenbroekR. G. (2012). The end-state comfort effect facilitates joint action. Acta Psychologica, 139, 404–416. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.01.001
16.
KaratekinC. (2007). Eye tracking studies of normative and atypical development. Developmental Review, 27, 283–348. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2007.06.006
17.
KingB. R.KagererF. A.Contreras-VidalJ. L.ClarkJ. E. (2009). Evidence for multisensory spatial-to-motor transformations in aiming movements of children. Journal of Neurophysiology, 101, 315–322. doi:10.1152/jn.90781.2008
18.
KingB. R.OliveiraM. A.Contreras-VidalJ. L.ClarkJ. E. (2012). Development of state estimation explains improvements in sensorimotor performance across childhood. Journal of Neurophysiology, 107, 3040–3049. doi:10.1152/jn.00932.2011
19.
KingB. R.PangelinanM. M.KagererF. A.ClarkJ. E. (2010). Improvements in proprioceptive functioning influence multisensory-motor integration in 7-to 13-year-old children. Neuroscience Letters, 483, 36–40. doi:10.1016/j.neulet.2010.07.056
20.
LambM.KallenR. W.HarrisonS. J.Di BernardoM.MinaiA.RichardsonM. J. (2017). To pass or not to pass: Modeling the movement and affordance dynamics of a pick and place task. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1061. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01061
21.
LiangK. Y.ZegerS. L. (1986). Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika, 73, 13–22.
22.
MasonA. H.BruynJ. L.LazarusJ. A. C. (2013). Bimanual coordination in children: Manipulation of object distance. Experimental Brain Research, 231, 153–164. doi:10.1007/s00221-013-3678-y
23.
McCartyM. E.CliftonR. K.CollardR. R. (1999). Problem solving in infancy: The emergence of an action plan. Developmental Psychology, 35, 1091–1101. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.35.4.1091
24.
MeyerM.van der WelR. P.HunniusS. (2013). Higher-order action planning for individual and joint object manipulations. Experimental Brain Research, 225, 579–588. doi:10.1007/s00221-012-3398-8
25.
MeyerM.van der WelR. P.HunniusS. (2016). Planning my actions to accommodate yours: Joint action development during early childhood. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 371, 20150371. doi:10.1098/rstb.2015.0371
26.
PaulusM. (2016). The development of action planning in a joint action context. Developmental Psychology, 52, 1052.
27.
PayneG.IssacsL. (2011). Human motor development: A lifespan approach (8th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
28.
PiagetJ. (1953). The origins of intelligence in children. London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.
29.
RayM.de GrosboisJ.WelshT. N. (2017). Index of difficulty and side of space are accommodated during the selection and planning of a joint action. Human Movement Science, 54, 197–209. doi:10.1016/j.humov.2017.05.009
30.
RayM.WelshT. N. (2011). Response selection during a joint action task. Journal of Motor Behavior, 43, 329–332. doi:10.1080/00222895.2011.592871
31.
RayM.WelshT. N. (2018). Multiple frames of reference are used during the selection and planning of a sequential joint action. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 542. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00542
32.
RizzolattiG.SinigagliaC. (2010). The functional role of the parieto-frontal mirror circuit: Interpretations and misinterpretations. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11, 264–274. doi:10.1038/nrn2805
33.
RosenbaumD. A.ChapmanK. M.WeigeltM.WeissD. J.van der WelR. (2012). Cognition, action, and object manipulation. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 924–946. doi:10.1037/a0027839
34.
RosenbaumD. A.MarchakF.BarnesH. J.VaughanJ.SlottaJ. D.JorgensenM. J. (1990). Constraints for action selection: Overhand versus underhand grips. In JeannerodM. (Ed.), Motor representation and control: Attention and performance XIII (pp. 321–342). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
35.
SacheliL. M.MeyerM.HartstraE.BekkeringH.HunniusS. (2019). How preschoolers and adults represent their joint action partner’s behavior. Psychological Research, 83, 863–877. doi:10.1007/s00426-017-0929-8
36.
SantamariaJ. P.RosenbaumD. A. (2011). Etiquette and effort holding doors for others. Psychological Science, 22, 584–588. doi:10.1177/0956797611406444
37.
SattaE.Ferrari-TonioloS.Visco-ComandiniF.CaminitiR.Battaglia-MayerA. (2017). Development of motor coordination during joint action in mid childhood. Neuropsychologia, 105, 111–122. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2017.04.027
38.
ScharounS. M.BrydenP. J. (2014). The development of end- and beginning-state comfort in a cup manipulation task. Developmental Psychobiology, 56, 407–420. doi:10.1002/dev.21108
39.
Scharoun BensonS. M.BrydenP. J. (2018). Response to Commentary: Hand and grasp selection in a preferential reaching task: The effects of object location, orientation and task intention. Frontiers in Psychology (Cognition), 9, 905. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00905
40.
ScharounS. M.BrydenP. J.CinelliM. E.GonzalezD. A.RoyE. A. (2016). Do children have the same capacity to perceive affordances as adults? An investigation of tool selection and use. Journal of Motor Learning and Development, 4, 59–79. doi:10.1123/jmld.2015-0001
41.
ScharounS. M.GonzalezD. A.RoyE. A.BrydenP. J. (2016). How the mode of action affects behavioural evidence of planning and movement kinematics in aging: End-state comfort in older adults. Developmental Psychobiology, 58, 439–449. doi:10.1002/dev.21386
42.
ScharounS. M.GonzalezD. A.RoyE. A.BrydenP. J. (2018). End-state comfort across the lifespan: A cross-sectional investigation of how the movement context influences motor planning in an overturned glass task. Motor Control, 22, 211–230. doi:doi.org/10.1123/mc.2016-0064
43.
ScharounS. M.MintzA.GlazebrookC. M.RoyE.GonzalezD. (2017). How working with a helpful versus less helpful confederate influences joint-action in a pegboard task. Journal of Motor Behavior, 49, 619–628. doi:10.1080/00222895.2016.1250715
44.
Scharoun BensonS. M.RoyE. A.BrydenP. J. (2018). End-state comfort in two object manipulation tasks: Investigating how the movement context influences planning in children, young adults, and older adults. Developmental Psychobiology, 60, 317–323. doi:10.1002/dev.21611
45.
ScharounS. M.ScanlanK. A.BrydenP. J. (2016). Hand and grasp selection in a preferential reaching task: The effects of object location, orientation, and task intention. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 360. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00360
46.
SebanzN.BekkeringH.KnoblichG. (2006). Joint action: Bodies and minds moving together. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 70–76. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2005.12.009
47.
Smits-EngelsmanB. C. M.WestenbergY.DuysensJ. (2003). Development of isometric force and force control in children. Cognitive Brain Research, 17, 68–74. doi:10.1016/S0926-6410(03)00081-8
48.
StöckelT.HughesC. M. (2015). Effects of multiple planning constraints on the development of grasp posture planning in 6-to 10-year-old children. Developmental Psychology, 51, 1254–1261. doi:10.1037/a0039506
49.
TuckerM.EllisR. (1998). On the relations between seen objects and components of potential actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 830–846. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.24.3.830
50.
Van BraeckelK.ButcherP. R.GeuzeR. H.StremmelaarE. F.BoumaA. (2007). Movement adaptations in 7-to 10-year-old typically developing children: Evidence for a transition in feedback-based motor control. Human Movement Science, 26, 927–942. doi:10.1016/j.humov.2007.07.010
51.
van ElkM.van SchieH.BekkeringH. (2014). Action semantics: A unifying conceptual framework for the selective use of multimodal and modality-specific object knowledge. Physics of Life Reviews, 11, 220–250. doi:10.1016/j.plrev.2013.11.005
52.
WunschK.WeigeltM.StöckelT. (2017). Anticipatory motor planning in older adults. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 72, 373–382. doi:10.1093/geronb/gbv078
53.
ZegerS. L.LiangK. Y. (1986). Longitudinal data analysis for discrete and continuous outcomes. Biometrics, 42, 121–130.
