These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: The role of proprioception in the control of prehension movements: a kinematic study in a peripherally deafferented patient and in normal subjects.
    Author: Gentilucci M, Toni I, Chieffi S, Pavesi G.
    Journal: Exp Brain Res; 1994; 99(3):483-500. PubMed ID: 7957728.
    Abstract:
    In this study we investigated the role of proprioception in the control of prehension movements, with particular reference to the grasp component. Grasp and transport kinematics were studied in a peripherally deafferented patient and in five healthy subjects. Two experiments were carried out: the prehension experiment and the grasp perturbation experiment. In the prehension experiment both the patient and the control subjects were required to reach and grasp three objects of different size, located at three different distances, both with and without visual feedback. In the grasp perturbation experiment a mechanical perturbation was applied to the fingers during prehension movements, again executed with and without visual feedback. In the prehension experiment temporal parameters of the patient's movements were generally slowed, with greater variability on some measures. However, over the first phase of the movement the pattern of the patient's hand opening and transport acceleration, scaled to object size and distance, was the same as that of controls, both with and without visual feedback. On the contrary, during the final phase of the movement (the finger closure phase and deceleration) the patient's performance differed significantly from the controls. These phases were abnormally lengthened and frequent movement adjustments were observed. In the grasp perturbation experiment the patient was not able to compensate for the perturbations applied to the fingers, even with visual feedback. The data allowed us to investigate also the respective contribution of proprioception and of vision of the hand in the control of prehension. We compared prehension kinematics in two conditions: (a) with visual but no proprioceptive feedback (in the patient) and (b) with proprioceptive but no visual feedback (in the controls). In both experiments proprioceptive control was more efficient than visual control. The results of this study are interpreted in favour of the strict dependence of prehension control on proprioception. The first phase of the movement, however, can be appropriately planned and executed without the necessity of either proprioceptive or visual information about the hand.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]