17.01.2013 Views

Chapter 2. Prehension

Chapter 2. Prehension

Chapter 2. Prehension

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

<strong>Chapter</strong> 3 - Serial Order in <strong>Prehension</strong> 59<br />

transport and grasping components. Research that restricts visual in-<br />

formation to the central or peripheral visual fields shows differential<br />

effects on the transport and grasping components, thereby extending<br />

the distinctions made in Paillard’s conceptual model.<br />

Significant limitations to these conceptual models relate to the un-<br />

derlying question of the sequencing of phases. Jeannerod’s analyses<br />

were strictly limited to movement before contact with the object, yet he<br />

also argues for the separation of this movement into two distinct<br />

phases. As Paillard (1982b) anticipated, and others have experimen-<br />

tally demonstrated, there are obvious differences in the movement be-<br />

fore and after contact with the object. For example, multiple phases of<br />

force application have been identified after contact with the object. As<br />

well, much has been written in the robotics literature about stably<br />

grasping and manipulating objects. A more comprehensive model<br />

must be developed to reflect current knowledge of the entire complex-<br />

ity of grasping movement.<br />

For the modeller, the conceptual model does not explain exactly<br />

what information is being transferred or controlled. What are the in-<br />

puts and outputs? For example, what is the size information being<br />

passed to the ‘finger adjustment’ schema, and what exactly does it<br />

mean to adjust the fingers? Many researchers, such as Jeannerod,<br />

have looked at the aperture between the thumb and index finger as a<br />

metric of hand shaping. Is this a valid metric, or are there more<br />

revealing, complete methods for quantifying hand shaping? In light of<br />

the prehensile classification schemes outlined in <strong>Chapter</strong> 2, the size of<br />

the aperture may be a reasonable measure for pad opposition, but is it<br />

valid as a measure for other grasps involving hand surfaces other than<br />

the fingers pads?<br />

Two main messages can be seen in Jeannerod’s results and the<br />

conceptual models of Arbib, Greene, and Paillard. First, the system is<br />

a distributed one, involving parallel activation and coordinated control<br />

of several components or subsystems. In addition to the transport and<br />

grasping components, parallel activation and control of head and eye<br />

movement occurs in order to foveate objects. Likewise, there are cor-<br />

responding postural adjustments to optimize interaction with the object<br />

and maintain stability or balance. While all these subsystems are im-<br />

portant, this book concentrates primarily on the transport and grasping<br />

components. The second main message is that there are different<br />

phases as the unified act of grasping unfolds. The problem of serial<br />

order in behavior has long been of interest (see Lashley, 1951).<br />

Detailing the phases of prehension at a conceptual level, based on ex-

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!