Advertisement

Change in effectivity yields recalibration of affordance geometry to preserve functional dynamics

  • Xiaoye Michael WangEmail author
  • Geoffrey P. Bingham
Research Article

Abstract

Mon-Williams and Bingham (Exp Brain Res 211(1):145–160, 2011) developed a geometrical affordance model for reaches-to-grasp, and identified a constant scaling relationship, P, between safety margins (SM) and available apertures (SM) that are determined by the sizes of the objects and the individual hands. Bingham et al. (J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 40(4):1542–1550, 2014) extended the model by introducing a dynamical component that scales the geometrical relationship to the stability of the reaching-to-grasp. The goal of the current study was to explore whether and how quickly change in the relevant effectivity (functionally determined hand size = maximum grip) would affect the geometrical and dynamical scaling relationships. The maximum grip of large-handed males was progressively restricted. Participants responded to this restriction by using progressively smaller safety margins, but progressively larger P (= SM/AA) values that preserved an invariant dynamical scaling relationship. The recalibration was relatively fast, occurring over five trials or less, presumably a number required to detect the variability or stability of performance. The results supported the affordance model for reaches-to-grasp in which the invariance is determined by the dynamical component, because it serves the goal of not colliding with the object before successful grasping can be achieved. The findings were also consistent with those of Snapp-Childs and Bingham (Exp Brain Res 198(4):527–533, 2009) who found changes in age-specific geometric scaling for stepping affordances as a function of changes in effectivities over the life span where those changes preserved a dynamic scaling constant similar to that in the current study.

Keywords

Reach-to-grasp Affordance Perception/action Calibration Body size 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical approval

Procedures in this study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and the Declaration of Helsinki.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Glossary

Available aperture, AA

The difference between MG and MOE (AA = MG − MOE)

Final grasp aperture, FGA

Occurs when the fingers, i.e., thumb and index finger, actually contact the object in the grasp. Temporally, FGA occurs after TGA. FGA is operationally defined as the distance between the fingers when the velocity of the index finger falls below 3 cm/s

Lateral position of MGA, MGA POS

The difference between the center of the object and the center of MGA. This is a measure of the accuracy of the targeting portion of reach-to-grasp. MGA POS is operationally defined as the distance from the center of MGA to the vertical plane formed between the midpoints of grasp aperture at the initiation of the reach and that at FGA

Maximum grasp aperture, MGA

Occurs during the approach of the hand to the target object when the grasp aperture is the maximum

Maximum grip, MG

Reflects the effective size of the actor’s hand. MG is operationally determined by having the actors to grasp and hold the longest rod they can using their thumb and index finger

Maximum object extent, MOE

The maximum length diagonal through the object. This is operationally defined as the Pythagorean of the object width and the length of the grasp surface.

Safety margin, SM

The difference between the MGA and MOE (SM = MGA − MOE)

Safety margin’s variability, SM SD

Reflects the variability of the grasping movement. SM SD is operationally defined as the standard deviation of SM for a given object

Terminal grasp aperture, TGA

Occurs when the hand velocity drops to zero with the hand at the target object but prior to the fingers closing on the object. Temporally, TGA occurs before FGA. TGA is operationally defined as the distance between the fingers when the velocity of the wrist drops below 5 cm/s

Total variability, TV

Sum of SM SD and MGA POS SD

References

  1. Ansuini C, Cavallo A, Koul A, Jacono M, Yang Y, Becchio C (2015) Predicting object size from hand kinematics: a temporal perspective. PLoS One 10(3):e0120432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bingham GP, Mon-Williams MA (2013) The dynamics of sensorimotor calibration in reaching-to-grasp movements. J Neurophysiol 110(12):2857–2862CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bingham GP, Hughes K, Mon-Williams M (2008) The coordination patterns observed when two hands reach-to-grasp separate objects. Exp Brain Res 184(3):283–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bingham GP, Snapp-Childs W, Fath AJ, Pan JS, Coats RO (2014) A geometric and dynamic affordance model of reaches-to-grasp: men take greater risks than women. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 40(4):1542–1550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bootsma RJ, Marteniuk RG, MacKenzie CL, Zaal FT (1994) The speed-accuracy trade-off in manual prehension: effects of movement amplitude, object size and object width on kinematic characteristics. Exp Brain Res 98(3):535–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cesari P, Newell KM (1999) The scaling of human grip configurations. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 25(4):927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Challis JH (2018) Body size and movement. Kinesiol Rev 7(1):88–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Choi HJ, Mark LS (2004) Scaling affordances for human reach actions. Hum Mov Sci 23(6):785–806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coats R, Bingham GP, Mon-Williams MA (2008) Calibrating grasp size and reach distance: interactions reveal integral organization of reaching-to-grasp movements. Exp Brain Res 189(2):211–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cousineau D (2005) Confidence intervals in within-subject designs: a simpler solution to Loftus and Masson’s method. Tutor Quant Methods Psychol 1(1):42–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fajen BR (2005) Perceiving possibilities for action: on the necessity of calibration and perceptual learning for the visual guidance of action. Perception 34(6):717–740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fajen BR (2007a) Affordance-based control of visually guided action. Ecol Psychol 19(4):383–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fajen BR (2007b) Rapid recalibration based on optic flow in visually guided action. Exp Brain Res 183(1):61–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A (2007) G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods 39:175–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, Lang AG (2009) Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav Res Methods 41:1149–1160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gibson JJ (1986) The ecological approach to visual perception. Psychology Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Golenia L, Schoemaker MM, Mouton LJ, Bongers RM (2014) Individual differences in learning a novel discrete motor task. PLoS One 9(11):e112806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hoff B, Arbib MA (1993) Models of trajectory formation and temporal interaction of reach and grasp. J Mot Behav 25(3):175–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Iberall T, Bingham GP, Arbib MA (1986) Opposition space as a structuring concept for the analysis of skilled hand movements. In: Experimental brain research series, vol 15. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  20. Jeannerod M (1984) The timing of natural prehension movements. J Mot Behav 16(3):235–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lee YL, Bingham GP (2010) Large perspective changes yield perception of metric shape that allows accurate feedforward reaches-to-grasp and it persists after the optic flow has stopped! Exp Brain Res 204(4):559–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mark LS (1987) Eye height-scaled information about affordances: A study of sitting and stair climbing. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 13(3):361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mon-Williams M, Bingham GP (2011) Discovering affordances that determine the spatial structure of reach-to-grasp movements. Exp Brain Res 211(1):145–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Morey RD (2008) Confidence intervals from normalized data: a correction to Cousineau (2005). Tutor Quant Methods Psychol 4(2):61–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Osiurak F, Badets A (2016) Tool use and affordance: manipulation-based versus reasoning-based approaches. Psychol Rev 123(5):534–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Osiurak F, Jarry C, Le Gall D (2010) Grasping the affordances, understanding the reasoning: toward a dialectical theory of human tool use. Psychol Rev 117(2):517–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Parsons LM (1994) Temporal and kinematic properties of motor behavior reflected in mentally simulated action. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 20(4):709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rosenbaum DA, Meulenbroek RG, Vaughan J, Jansen C (1999) Coordination of reaching and grasping by capitalizing on obstacle avoidance and other constraints. Exp Brain Res 128(1–2):92–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Snapp-Childs W, Bingham GP (2009) The affordance of barrier crossing in young children exhibits dynamic, not geometric, similarity. Exp Brain Res 198(4):527–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Stefanucci JK, Geuss MN (2010) Duck! Scaling the height of a horizontal barrier to body height. Atten Percept Psychophys 72(5):1338–1349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Turvey MT, Shaw RE, Reed ES, Mace WM (1981) Ecological laws of perceiving and acting: in reply to Fodor and Pylyshyn (1981). Cognition 9(3):237–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Warren WH (1984) Perceiving affordances: visual guidance of stair climbing. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 10(5):683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Warren WH, Whang S (1987) Visual guidance of walking through apertures: body-scaled information for affordances. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 13(3):371CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Psychological and Brain SciencesIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations