| Title |
Factors influencing planning of a familiar grasp to an object: what it is to pick a cup
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Experimental Brain Research, February 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00221-017-4883-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Elisabeth Rounis, Zuo Zhang, Gloria Pizzamiglio, Mihaela Duta, Glyn Humphreys |
| Abstract |
We assessed the factors influencing the planning of actions required to manipulate one of two everyday objects with matching dimensions but openings at opposite ends: a cup and a vase. We found that, for cups, measures of movement preparation to reach and grasp the object were influenced by whether the grasp was made to the functional part of the object (wide opening) and whether the action would end in a supinated as opposed to a pronated grasp. These factors interacted such that effects of hand posture were found only when a less familiar grasp was made to the non-functional part of the cup (the base). These effects were not found with the vase, which has a less familiar location for grasping. We interpret the results in terms of a parallel model of action selection, modulated by both the familiarity of the grasp to a part of the object, likely to reflect object 'affordances' and the end state comfort of the action. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 30 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 27% |
| Researcher | 5 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 7% |
| Professor | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 13% |
| Unknown | 6 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 8 | 27% |
| Neuroscience | 6 | 20% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 17% |
| Engineering | 3 | 10% |
| Sports and Recreations | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 5 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 February 2017.
All research outputs
#18,531,724
of 22,953,506 outputs
Outputs from Experimental Brain Research
#2,483
of 3,236 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#235,458
of 307,002 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Experimental Brain Research
#41
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,953,506 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,236 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 307,002 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.