Knowing your nose better than your thumb: measures of over-grasp reveal that face-parts are special for grasping

Distorted perceptual face maps

Recent research has shown that proprioception relies on distorted representations of body size and shape. By asking participants to localise multiple landmarks in space, perceptual body maps can be constructed. Such maps of the hand and forearm is highly distorted, with large overestimation of limb width compared to length. Here, we investigated perceptual maps of the face, a body part central to our sense of self and personal identity. Participants localised 19 facial landmarks by pointing on a board covering their face. By comparing the relative location of judgments, we constructed perceptual face maps and compared them to actual face structure. These maps were massively distorted, with large overestimation of face width, but not length. This shows that distortions in perceptual body maps are not unique to the hand, but widespread on the body, including parts like the face at the core of our personal identity.

Direct comparisons of hand and mouth kinematics during grasping, feeding and fork-feeding actions

While a plethora of studies have examined the kinematics of human reach-to-grasp actions, few have investigated feeding, another ethologically important real-world action. Two seminal studies concluded that the kinematics of the mouth during feeding are comparable to those of the hand during grasping (Castiello, 1997; Churchill et al., 1999); however, feeding was done with a fork or spoon, not with the hand itself. Here, we directly compared grasping and feeding kinematics under equivalent conditions. Participants were presented with differently sized cubes of cheese (10-, 20- or 30-mm on each side) and asked to use the hand to grasp them or to use a fork to spear them and then bring them to the mouth to bite. We measured the apertures of the hand during grasping and the teeth during feeding, as well as reaching kinematics of the arm in both tasks. As in many past studies, we found that the hand oversized considerably larger (~11–27 mm) than the food item during grasping; moreover, the amount of oversizing scaled with food size. Surprisingly, regardless of whether the hand or fork was used to transport the food, the mouth oversized only slightly larger (~4–11 mm) than the food item during biting and the oversizing did not increase with food size. Total movement times were longer when using the fork compared to the hand, particularly when using the fork to bring food to the mouth. While reach velocity always peaked approximately halfway through the movement, relative to the reach the mouth opened more slowly than the hand, perhaps because less time was required for the smaller oversizing. Taken together, our results show that while many aspects of kinematics share some similarity between grasping and feeding, oversizing may reflect strategies unique to the hand vs. mouth (such as the need to have the digits approach the target surface perpendicularly for grip stability during lifting) and differences in the neural substrates of grasping and feeding.

Reach and Grasp reconfigurations reveal that proprioception assists reaching and hapsis assists grasping in peripheral vision

The dual visuomotor channel theory proposes that prehension consists of a Reach that transports the hand in relation to an object's extrinsic properties (e.g., location) and a Grasp that shapes the hand to an object's intrinsic properties (e.g., size and shape). In central vision, the Reach and the Grasp are integrated but when an object cannot be seen, the movements can decompose with the Reach first used to locate the object and the Grasp postponed until it is assisted by touch. Reaching for an object in a peripheral visual field is an everyday act, and although it is reported that there are changes in Grasp aperture with target eccentricity, it is not known whether the configuration of the Reach and the Grasp also changes. The present study examined this question by asking participants to reach for food items at 0° or 22.5° and 45° from central gaze. Participants made 15 reaches for a larger round donut ball and a smaller blueberry, and hand movements were analyzed using frame-by-frame video inspection and linear kinematics. Perception of targets was degraded as participants could not identify objects in peripheral vision but did recognize their differential size. The Reach to peripheral targets featured a more dorsal trajectory, a more open hand, and less accurate digit placement. The Grasp featured hand adjustments or target manipulations after contact, which were associated with a prolonged Grasp duration. Thus, Grasps to peripheral vision did not consist only of a simple modification of visually guided reaching but included the addition of somatosensory assistance. The kinematic and behavioral changes argue that proprioception assists the Reach and touch assists the Grasp in peripheral vision, supporting the idea that Reach and Grasp movements are used flexibly in relation to sensory guidance depending upon the salience of target properties.

Different evolutionary origins for the reach and the grasp: an explanation for dual visuomotor channels in primate parietofrontal cortex

The Dual Visuomotor Channel Theory proposes that manual prehension consists of two temporally integrated movements, each subserved by distinct visuomotor pathways in occipitoparietofrontal cortex. The Reach is mediated by a dorsomedial pathway and transports the hand in relation to the target's extrinsic properties (i.e., location and orientation). The Grasp is mediated by a dorsolateral pathway and opens, preshapes, and closes the hand in relation to the target's intrinsic properties (i.e., size and shape). Here, neuropsychological, developmental, and comparative evidence is reviewed to show that the Reach and the Grasp have different evolutionary origins. First, the removal or degradation of vision causes prehension to decompose into its constituent Reach and Grasp components, which are then executed in sequence or isolation. Similar decomposition occurs in optic ataxic patients following cortical injury to the Reach and the Grasp pathways and after corticospinal tract lesions in non-human primates. Second, early non-visual PreReach and PreGrasp movements develop into mature Reach and Grasp movements but are only integrated under visual control after a prolonged developmental period. Third, comparative studies reveal many similarities between stepping movements and the Reach and between food handling movements and the Grasp, suggesting that the Reach and the Grasp are derived from different evolutionary antecedents. The evidence is discussed in relation to the ideas that dual visuomotor channels in primate parietofrontal cortex emerged as a result of distinct evolutionary origins for the Reach and the Grasp; that foveated vision in primates serves to integrate the Reach and the Grasp into a single prehensile act; and, that flexible recombination of discrete Reach and Grasp movements under various forms of sensory and cognitive control can produce adaptive behavior.

Oral hapsis guides accurate hand preshaping for grasping food targets in the mouth

Preshaping the digits and orienting the hand when reaching to grasp a distal target is proposed to be optimal when guided by vision. A reach-to-grasp movement to an object in one's own mouth is a natural and commonly used movement, but there has been no previous description of how it is performed. The movement requires accuracy but likely depends upon haptic rather than visual guidance, leading to the question of whether the kinematics of this movement are similar to those with vision or whether the movement depends upon an alternate strategy. The present study used frame-by-frame video analysis and linear kinematics to analyze hand movements as participants reached for ethologically relevant food targets placed either at a distal location or in the mouth. When reaching for small and medium-sized food items (blueberries and donut balls) that had maximal lip-to-target contact, hand preshaping was equivalent to that used for visually guided reaching. When reaching for a large food item (orange slice) that extended beyond the edges of the mouth, hand preshaping was suboptimal compared to vision. Nevertheless, hapsis from the reaching hand was used to reshape and reorient the hand after first contact with the large target. The equally precise guidance of hand preshaping under oral hapsis is discussed in relation to the idea that hand preshaping, and its requisite neural circuitry, may have originated under somatosensory control, with secondary access by vision.

Estimation and representation of head size (people overestimate the size of their head - evidence starting from the 15th century)

The head is a special part of our body since we do not see it directly. Four experiments were conducted to verify what healthy people know about the size of their head. As a control, we used the accuracy in estimating other people's heads (in all the experiments) and the estimation of the size of another part of the body, the hand (in Experiment 4). Results showed that people overestimate their own head size compared to its actual size when visual information is not provided (Experiments 1-4). They also overestimate their head size compared to the heads of others whether viewed directly (Experiment 1) or from memory (Experiment 2). Overestimation with respect to the actual size is reduced when visual information is provided (Experiments 1 and 4) and when proprioception is (presumably) increased by wearing a headband (Experiment 3). Overestimation with respect to actual size is not found for hands (Experiment 4). In the final study evidence emerged of head size overestimation in self-portraits as compared to portraits of others.

The role of long-term and short-term familiarity in visual and haptic face recognition

Recent studies have suggested that the familiarity of a face leads to more robust recognition, at least within the visual domain. The aim of our study was to investigate whether face familiarity resulted in a representation of faces that was easily shared across the sensory modalities. In Experiment 1, we tested whether haptic recognition of a highly familiar face (one's own face) was as efficient as visual recognition. Our observers were unable to recognise their own face models from tactile memory alone but were able to recognise their faces visually. However, haptic recognition improved when participants were primed by their own live face. In Experiment 2, we found that short-term familiarisation with a set of previously unfamiliar face stimuli improved crossmodal recognition relative to the recognition of unfamiliar faces. Our findings suggest that familiarisation provides a strong representation of faces but that the nature of the information encoded during learning is critical for efficient crossmodal recognition.