JN Fuel your research with LabChart
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


J Neurophysiol (December 8, 2004). doi:10.1152/jn.00599.2004
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
93/4/2021    most recent
00599.2004v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Quaney, B. M.
Right arrow Articles by Cole, K. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Quaney, B. M.
Right arrow Articles by Cole, K. J.
Submitted on June 11, 2004
Accepted on December 5, 2004

Can internal models of objects be utilized for different prehension tasks?

Barbara M. Quaney*, Randolph J. Nudo, and Kelly J. Cole

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: bquaney{at}kumc.edu.

We examined if object information obtained during one prehension task is utilized to produce fingertip forces to produce fingertip forces for handling the same object in a different prehension task. Our observations address the task-specificity of the internal models presumed to issue commands for grasping and transporting objects. Two groups participated in a two-day experiment in which they lifted a novel object (230 g; 1.2 g/cm3). On Day One, the High Force Group (HFG) lifted the object by applying 10 N of grip force prior to applying vertical lift force. This disrupted the usual coordination of grip and lift forces and represented a higher grip force than necessary. The Self-Selected Force Group (SSFG) lifted the object on Day One with no instructions regarding their grip or lift forces. They first generated grip forces of 5.8 N, which decreased to 2.6 N by the tenth lift. Four hours later, they lifted the same object in the manner of the HFG. On Day Two, both groups lifted the same object 'naturally and comfortably' with the opposite hand. The SSFG began Day Two using a grip force of 2.5 N, consistent with the acquisition of an accurate object representation during Day One. The HFG began Day Two using accurately scaled lift forces, but produced grip forces that virtually replicated those of the SSFG on Day One. We concur with recent suggestions that separate, independently adapted internal models produce grip and lift commands. The object representation that scaled the lift force was not available to scale grip force. Furthermore, the concept of a general-purpose object representation that is available across prehension tasks was not supported.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Neurorehabil Neural RepairHome page
J. Hermsdorfer, Z. Elias, J. D. Cole, B. M. Quaney, and D. A. Nowak
Preserved and Impaired Aspects of Feed-Forward Grip Force Control After Chronic Somatosensory Deafferentation
Neurorehabil Neural Repair, July 1, 2008; 22(4): 374 - 384.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
J. Neurophysiol.Home page
C. Ansuini, M. Santello, S. Massaccesi, and U. Castiello
Effects of End-Goal on Hand Shaping
J Neurophysiol, April 1, 2006; 95(4): 2456 - 2465.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Neurorehabil Neural RepairHome page
B. M. Quaney, S. Perera, R. Maletsky, C. W. Luchies, and R. J. Nudo
Impaired Grip Force Modulation in the Ipsilesional Hand after Unilateral Middle Cerebral Artery Stroke
Neurorehabil Neural Repair, December 1, 2005; 19(4): 338 - 349.
[Abstract] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
Visit Other APS Journals Online
Copyright © 2004 by the The American Physiological Society.