Posture of the arm when grasping spheres to place them elsewhere

Despite the infinitely many ways to grasp a spherical object, regularities have been observed in the posture of the arm and the grasp orientation. In the present study, we set out to determine the factors that predict the grasp orientation and the final joint angles of reach-tograsp movements. Subjects made reach-to-grasp movements toward a sphere to pick it up and place it at an indicated location. We varied the position of the sphere and the starting and placing positions. Multiple regression analysis showed that the sphere's azimuth from the subject was the best predictor of grasp orientation, although there were also smaller but reliable contributions of distance, starting position, and perhaps even placing position. The sphere's initial distance from the subject was the best predictor of the final elbow angle and shoulder elevation. A combination of the sphere's azimuth and distance from the subject was required to predict shoulder angle, trunkhead rotation, and lateral head position. The starting position best predicted the final wrist angle and sagittal head position. We conclude that the final posture of the arm when grasping a sphere to place it elsewhere is determined to a larger extend by the initial position of the object than by effects of starting and placing position. © 2010 Springer-Verlag

«La relation de limitation et d’exception dans le français d’aujourd’hui : excepté, sauf et hormis comme pivots d’une relation algébrique »

L’analyse des emplois prépositionnels et des emplois conjonctifs d’ “excepté”, de “sauf” et d’ “hormis” permet d’envisager les trois prépositions/conjonctions comme le pivot d’un binôme, comme la plaque tournante d’une structure bipolaire. Placées au milieu du binôme, ces prépositions sont forcées par leur sémantisme originaire dûment métaphorisé de jouer le rôle de marqueurs d’inconséquence systématique entre l’élément se trouvant à leur gauche et celui qui se trouve à leur droite. L’opposition qui surgit entre les deux éléments n’est donc pas une incompatibilité naturelle, intrinsèque, mais extrinsèque, induite. Dans la plupart des cas (emplois limitatifs), cette opposition prend la forme d’un rapport entre une « classe » et le « membre (soustrait) de la classe », ou bien entre un « tout » et une « partie » ; dans d’autres (emplois exceptifs), cette opposition se manifeste au contraire comme une attaque de front portée par un « tout » à un autre « tout ». De plus, l’inconséquence induite mise en place par la préposition/conjonction paraît, en principe, tout à fait insurmontable. Dans l’assertion « les écureuils vivent partout, sauf en Australie » (que l’on peut expliciter par « Les écureuils vivent partout, sauf [qu’ils ne vivent pas] en Australie »), la préposition semble en effet capable d’impliquer le prédicat principal avec signe inverti, et de bâtir sur une telle implication une sorte de sous énoncé qui, à la rigueur, est totalement inconséquent avec celui qui le précède (si « les écureuils ne vivent pas en Australie », le fait qu’ils « vivent partout » est faux). Néanmoins, l’analyse montre qu’alors que certaines de ces oppositions peuvent enfin être dépassées, d’autres ne le peuvent pas. C’est, respectivement, le cas des relations limitatives et des relations exceptives. La relation limitative, impliquant le rapport « tout » - « partie », permet de résoudre le conflit dans les termes d’une somme algébrique entre deux sous énoncés pourvus de différent poids informatif et de signe contraire. Les valeurs numériques des termes de la somme étant déséquilibrées, le résultat est toujours autre que zéro. La relation exceptive, au contraire, qui n’implique pas le rapport « tout » - « partie », n’est pas capable de résoudre le conflit entre deux sous énoncés pourvus du même poids informatif et en même temps de signe contraire : les valeurs numériques des termes de la somme étant symétriques et égales, le résultat sera toujours équivalent à zéro

The basal ganglia network mediates the planning of movement amplitude

This study addresses the hypothesis that the basal ganglia (BG) are involved specifically in the planning of movement amplitude (or covariates). Although often advanced, based on observations that Parkinson's disease (PD) patients exhibit hypokinesia in the absence of significant directional errors, this hypothesis has been challenged by a recent alternative, that parkinsonian hypometria could be caused by dysfunction of on-line feedback loops. To re-evaluate this issue, we conducted two successive experiments. In the first experiment we assumed that if BG are involved in extent planning then PD patients (who exhibit a major dysfunction within the BG network) should exhibit a preserved ability to use a direction precue with respect to normals, but an impaired ability to use an amplitude precue. Results were compatible with this prediction. Because this evidence did not prove conclusively that the BG is involved in amplitude planning (functional deficits are not restricted to the BG network in PD), a second experiment was conducted using positron emission tomography (PET). We hypothesized that if the BG is important for planning movement amplitude, a task requiring increased amplitude planning should produce increased activation in the BG network. In agreement with this prediction, we observed enhanced activation of BG structures under a precue condition that emphasized extent planning in comparison with conditions that emphasized direction planning or no planning. Considered together, our results are consistent with the idea that BG is directly involved in the planning of movement amplitude or of factors that covary with that parameter

Basal ganglia network mediates the control of movement amplitude

In the present study we address the hypothesis that the basal ganglia are specifically involved in the planning of movement amplitude (or related covariates). This prediction has often been put forward based on the observation that Parkinson's disease (PD) patients exhibit hypokinesia. A close examination of the literature shows, however, that this commonly reported clinical symptom is not consistently echoed by experimental observations. When required to point to visual targets in the absence of vision of the moving limb, PD subjects exhibit various patterns of inaccuracy, including hypometria, hypermetria, systematic direction bias, or direction-dependent errors. They have even been shown to be as accurate as healthy, age-matched subjects. The main aim of the current study is to address the origin of these inconsistencies. To this end, we required nine patients presenting with advanced PD and 15 age-matched control subjects to perform planar reaching movements to visual targets. Eight targets were presented in equally spaced directions around a circle centered on the hand's starting location. Based on a previously validated parsing procedure, end-point errors were segmented into localization and planning errors. Localization errors refer to the existence of systematic biases in the estimation of the initial hand location. These biases can potentially transform a simple pattern of pure amplitude errors into a complex pattern involving both amplitude and direction errors. Results indicated that localization errors were different in the PD patients and the control subjects. This is not surprising knowing both that proprioception is altered in PD patients and that the ability to locate the hand at rest relies mainly on the proprioceptive sense, even when vision is available. Unlike normal subjects, localization errors in PD were idiosyncratic, lacking a consistent pattern across subjects. When the confounding effect of initial hand localization errors was canceled, we found that end-point errors were only due to the implementation of an underscaled movement gain (15%), without direction bias. Interestingly, the level of undershoot was found to increase with the severity of the disease (inferred from the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale, UPDRS, motor score). We also observed that movement variability was amplified (32%), but only along the main movement axis (extent variability). Direction variability was not significantly different in the patient population and the control group. When considered together, these results support the idea that the basal ganglia are specifically involved in the control of movement amplitude (or of some covariates). We propose that this structure participates in extent planning by modulating cortical activity and/or the tuning of the spinal interneuronal circuits