Dependence of Manual Grasping on the Behavioral Context: A Comparison between Arms and between Age Groups


We evaluated the kinematics and dynamics of grasping in a typical laboratory situation (L) and in a more everyday-like situation (E), using right-handed subjects. Performance was compared when young subjects used their right versus left arm, and when young versus old subjects used their left arm. As in our previous work, multiple differences emerged between parameter values in the two contexts, L and E. These context differences were, however, more pronounced for the left rather than for the right arm of young subjects, and more pronounced for the left arm of young rather than older subjects. We propose an explanation based on the differential involvement of the dorsal and ventral cortical processing stream in L and in E: The differential involvement would be accentuated for the left arm of young, but not for the left arm of older subjects.

Share and Cite:

Bock, O. & Baak, B. (2013). Dependence of Manual Grasping on the Behavioral Context: A Comparison between Arms and between Age Groups. Psychology, 4, 998-1003. doi: 10.4236/psych.2013.412144.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


[1] Annett, J., Annett, M., Hudson, P. T., & Turner, A. (1979). The control of movement in the preferred and non-preferred hands. The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology, 31, 641-652.
[2] Bock, O., & Beurskens, R. (2010). Changes of locomotion in old age depend on task setting. Gait & Posture, 32, 645-649.
[3] Bock, O., & Hagemann, A. (2010). An experimental paradigm to compare motor performance under laboratory and under everyday-like conditions. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 193, 24-28.
[4] Bock, O., & Steinberg, F. (2012). Age-related deficits of manual grasping in a laboratory versus in an everyday-like setting. Ageing Research, 3.
[5] Bock, O., & Züll, A. (2013). Characteristics of grasping movements in a laboratory and in an everyday-like context. Human Movement Science, 32, 249-256.
[6] Buxbaum, L. J., Johnson-Frey, S. H., & Bartlett-Williams, M. (2005). Deficient internal models for planning hand-object interactions in apraxia. Neuropsychology Review, 43, 917-929.
[7] Carson, R. G., Chua, R., Goodman, D. A., Byblow, W., & Elliott, D., (1995). The preparation of aiming movements. Brain and Cognition, 28, 133-154.
[8] Chaytor, N., & Schmitter-Edgecombe, M. (2003). The ecological validity of neuropsychological tests: A review of the literature on everyday cognitive skills. Neuropsychology Review, 13, 181-197.
[9] Daprati, E., & Sirigu, A. (2006). How we interact with objects: Learning from brain lesions/How we interact with objects: Learning from brain lesions. Trends in Cognitive Science, 10, 265-270.
[10] Elliott, D., Roy, E. A., Goodman, D. A., Chua, R., Carson, R., Maraj, B., et al. (1993). Asymmetries in the preparation and control of manual aiming movements. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47, 570-589.
[11] Fagard, J., & Lockman, J. J. (2005). The effect of task constraints on infants’ (bi)manual strategy for grasping and exploring objects. Infant Behavior and Development, 28, 305-315.
[12] Gonzalez, C. L. R., Ganel, T., & Goodale, M. A. (2006). Hemispheric specialization for the visual control of action is independent of handedness. Journal of Neurophysiology, 95, 3496-3501.
[13] Gonzalez, C. L. R., Whitwell, R. L., Morrissey, B., Ganel, T., & Goodale, M. A. (2007). Left handedness does not extend to visually guided precision grasping. Experimental Brain Research, 182, 275-279.
[14] Gonzalez, C. L. R., & Goodale, M. A. (2009). Hand preference for precision grasping predicts language lateralization. Neuropsycholgia, 47, 3182-3189.
[15] Goodale, M., & Milner, A. (1992). Separate visual pathways for perception and action. Trends in Neurosciences, 15, 20-25.
[16] Goodale, M. A., & Westwood, D. A. (2004). An evolving view of duplex vision: Separate but interacting cortical pathways for perception and action. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 14, 203-211.
[17] Grosskopf, A., & Kuhtz-Buschbeck, J. P. (2006). Grasping with the left and right hand: A kinematic study. Experimental Brain Research, 168, 230-240.
[18] Ingram, J. N., & Wolpert, D. M. (2011). Naturalistic approaches to sensorimotor control. Progress in Brain Research, 191, 3-29.
[19] Kalisch, T., Wilimzig, C., Kleibel, N., Tegenthoff, M., Dinse, H. R., & Miall, C. (2006). Age-related attenuation of dominant hand superiority. PLoS ONE, 1, e90.
[20] Milner, A., & Goodale, M. (1993). Visual pathways to perception and action. Progress in Brain Research, 95, 317-337.
[21] Rossetti, Y., & Pisella, L. (2002). Several “Vision for Action” systems: A guide to dissociating and integrating dorsal and ventral functions (tutorial). In W. Prinz, & B. Hommel (Eds.), Attention and performance; common mechanisms in perception and action (pp. 62-119). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[22] Sainburg, R. L., & Schaefer, S. Y. (2004). Interlimb differences in control of movement extent. Journal of Neurophysiology, 92, 1374-1383.
[23] Sainburg, R. L., & Kalakanis, D. (2000). Differences in control of limb dynamics during dominant and nondominant arm reaching. Journal of Neurophysiology, 83, 2661-2675.
[24] Steinberg, F., & Bock, O. (2013). Context dependence of manual grasping movements in near weightlessness. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 84, 467-472.
[25] Steinberg, F., & Bock, O. (2013). Influence of cognitive functions and behavioral context on grasping kinematics. Experimental Brain Research, 225, 387-397.
[26] Steinberg, F., & Bock, O. (2013). The context dependence of grasping movements: An evaluation of possible reasons. Experimental Brain Research, 229, 587-594.
[27] Trevarthen, C. (2010). Hemispheric specialization. In R. Terjung (Ed.), Comprehensive Physiology (pp. 1129-1190). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
[28] Wing, A. M., Turton, A., & Fraser, C. (1986). Grasp size and accuracy of approach in reaching. Journal of Motor Behavior, 18, 245-260.
[29] Woodworth, R. (1899). The accuracy of voluntary movement. Psychological Review, 3, 1-119.

Copyright © 2023 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.