Understanding the control of movement requires an awareness of how tasks constrain movements. The present study investigated the effects of two types of task constraints—spatial accuracy (effector size) and target location—on reaching kinematics. 15 right-handed healthy young adults (7 men, 8 women) whose mean age was 23.6 yr. (SD = 3.9 yr.) performed the ringing task under six conditions, formed by the crossing of effector size (larger vs smaller size) and target location (left, right, or a central position). Significant main effects of effector size and target location were found for peak velocity and movement time. There was a significant interaction for the percentage of time to peak velocity. The findings suggested that task constraints may modulate movement performance in specific ways. Effects of effector size might be a consequence of feedforward and feedback control, and location effects might be influenced by both biomechanical and neurological factors.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdamJ. J. (1992) The effects of objectives and contraints on motor control strategy in reciprocal aiming movements. Journal of Motor Behavior, 24, 173–185.
2.
BarthelemyS.BoulinguesP. (2002) Manual asymmetries in the directional coding of reaching: further evidence for hemispatial effects and right hemisphere dominance for movement planning. Experimental Brain Research, 147, 305–312.
3.
BerthierN. E.CliftonR. K.GullapalliV.McCallD. D.RobinD. J. (1996) Visual information and object size in the control of reaching. Journal of Motor Behavior, 28, 187–197.
4.
BrydenP. J. (2000) Object and target size effects of manual asymmetries: is index of difficulty truly a factor?Brain and Cognition, 9, 60–64.
5.
BrydenP. J. (2002) Pushing the limits of task difficulty for the right and left hands in manual aiming. Brain and Cognition, 12, 287–291.
6.
CareyD. P.HargreavesE. L.GoodaleM. A. (1996) Reaching to ipsilateral or contralateral targets: within-hemisphere visuomotor processing cannot explain hemispatial differences in motor control. Experimental Brain Research, 112, 496–504.
7.
CareyD. P.Otto-de HaartE. G. (2001) Hemispatial differences in visually guided aiming are neither hemispatial nor visual. Neuropsychologia, 39, 885–894.
8.
CohenJ. (1998) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. (2nd ed.) Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
9.
DesmurgetM.GraftonS. (2000) Forward modeling allows feedback control for fast reaching movements. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 423–431.
10.
FarneA.RoyA. C.PaulignanY.RodeG.RossettiY.BoissonD.JeannerodM. (2003) Visuomotor control of the ipsilateral hand: evidence from right brain-damaged patients. Neuropsychologia, 41, 739–757.
11.
FiskJ. D.GoodaleM. A. (1984) Differences in the organization of visually guided reaching to ipsilateral and contralateral targets. Behavioural Brain Research, 12, 189–190.
12.
FiskJ. D.GoodaleM. A. (1985) The organization of eye and limb movements during unrestricted reaching to targets in contralateral and ipsilateral visual space. Experimental Brain Research, 60, 159–178.
13.
FiskJ. D.GoodaleM. A. (1989) The effects of instructions to subjects on the programming of visually directed reaching movements. Journal of Motor Behavior, 21, 5–19.
14.
FittsP. M. (1954) The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47, 381–391.
15.
GarryM. I.FranksI. M. (2000) Reaction time differences in spatially constrained bilateral and unilateral movements. Experimental Brain Research, 131, 236–243.
16.
GordonJ.GilhardiM. F.CooperS. E.GhezC. (1994) Accuracy of planar reaching movements: II. Systematic errors resulting from inertial anisotropy. Experimental Brain Research, 99, 112–130.
17.
HaalandK. Y.PrestopnikJ. L.KnightR. T.LeeR. R. (2004) Hemispheric asymmetries for kinematic and positional aspects of reaching. Brain, 127, 1145–1158.
18.
JakobsonL. J.ServosP.GoodaleM. A.LassondeM. (1994) Control of proximal and distal components of prehension in callosal agenesis. Brain, 117, 1107–1113.
19.
JeannerodM. (1988) The neural and behavioural organization of goal-directed movements. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.
20.
KeeleS. W. (1981) Behavioral analysis of movement. In BrooksW. B. (Ed.), Handbook of physiology: Section 1. The nervous system (motor control). Vol. 2. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins. Pp. 1391–1414.
21.
MilnerT. E. (1992) A model for the generation of movements requiring endpoint precision. Neuroscience, 49, 487–496.
22.
NewellK. M. (1986) Constraints on the development of coordination. In WadeM.WhitingH. T. A. (Eds.), Motor development in children: aspects of coordination and control. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff. Pp. 341–360.
23.
NewellK. M.ValvanoJ. (1998) Therapeutic intervention as a constraint in learning and relearning movement skills. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 5, 51–57.
24.
RosenthalR.RosnowR. L. (1991) Essentials of behavioral research: methods and data analysis. (2nd ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill.
25.
RoyE.KalbfleischL.BrydenP.BarbourK.BlackS. (2000) Visual aiming movements in Alzheimer's disease. Brain and Cognition, 10, 380–384.
26.
SaoudM.CoelloY.DumasP.FranckN.d'AmatoT.DaleryJ.RossettiY. (2000) Visual pointing and speed/accuracy trade-off in schizophrenia. Cognitive Neuropsychiatry, 5, 123–134.
27.
Shumway-CookA.WoollacottM. H. (2001) Motor control: theory and practical applications. (2nd ed.) New York: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins.
28.
TeixeiraL. A. (1999) Kinematics of kicking as a function of different sources of constraint on accuracy. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 88, 785–789.
29.
VelayJ-L.DaffaureV.RaphaelN.Benoit-DubrocardS. (2001) Hemispheric asymmetry and interhemispheric transfer in pointing depend on the spatial components of the movement. Cortex, 37, 75–90.
