Theoretical perspectives on anticipatory planning of object manipulation have traditionally been informed by studies that have investigated kinematics (hand shaping and digit position) and kinetics (forces) in isolation. This poses limitations on our understanding of the integration of such domains, which have recently been shown to be strongly interdependent. Specifically, recent studies revealed strong covariation of digit position and load force during the loading phase of two-digit grasping. Here, we determined whether such digit force-position covariation is a general feature of grasping. We investigated the coordination of digit position and forces during five-digit whole-hand manipulation of an object with a variable mass distribution. Subjects were instructed to prevent object roll during the lift. As found in precision grasping, there was strong trial-to-trial covariation of digit position and force. This suggests that the natural variation of digit position that is compensated for by trial-to-trial variation in digit forces is a fundamental feature of grasp control, and not only specific to precision grasp. However, a main difference with precision grasping was that modulation of digit position to the object’s mass distribution was driven predominantly by the thumb, with little to no modulation of finger position. Modulation of thumb position rather than fingers is likely due to its greater range of motion and therefore adaptability to object properties. Our results underscore the flexibility of the central nervous system in implementing a range of solutions along the digit force-to-position continuum for dexterous manipulation.

Studies on anticipatory planning of object manipulation showed initial task failure (i.e., object roll) when visual object shape cues are incongruent with other visual cues, such as weight distribution/density (e.g., symmetrically shaped object with an asymmetrical density). This suggests that shape cues override density cues. However, these studies typically only measured forces, with digit placement constrained. Recent evidence suggests that when digit placement is unconstrained, subjects modulate digit forces and placement. Thus, unconstrained digit placement might be modulated on initial trials (since it is an explicit process), but not forces (since it is an implicit process). We tested whether shape and density cues would differentially influence anticipatory planning of digit placement and forces during initial trials of a two-digit object manipulation task. Furthermore, we tested whether shape cues would override density cues when cues are incongruent. Subjects grasped and lifted an object with the aim of preventing roll. In Experiment 1, the object was symmetrically shaped, but with asymmetrical density (incongruent cues). In Experiment 2, the object was asymmetrical in shape and density (congruent cues). In Experiment 3, the object was asymmetrically shaped, but with symmetrical density (incongruent cues). Results showed differential modulation of digit placement and forces (modulation of load force but not placement), but only when shape and density cues were congruent. When shape and density cues were incongruent, we found collinear digit placement and symmetrical force sharing. This suggests that congruent and incongruent shape and density cues differentially influence anticipatory planning of digit forces and placement. Furthermore, shape cues do not always override density cues. A continuum of visual cues, such as those alluding to shape and density, need to be integrated.

Studies have shown that internal representations of manipulations of objects with asymmetric mass distributions that are generated within a specific orientation are not generalizable to novel orientations, i.e., subjects fail to prevent object roll on their first grasp-lift attempt of the object following 180° object rotation. This suggests that representations of these manipulations are specific to the reference frame in which they are formed. However, it is unknown whether that reference frame is specific to the hand, the body, or both, because rotating the object 180° modifies the relation between object and body as well as object and hand. An alternative, untested explanation for the above failure to generalize learned manipulations is that any rotation will disrupt grasp performance, regardless if the reference frame in which the manipulation was learned is maintained or modified. We examined the effect of rotations that (1) maintain and (2) modify relations between object and body, and object and hand, on the generalizability of learned two-digit manipulation of an object with an asymmetric mass distribution. Following rotations that maintained the relation between object and body and object and hand (e.g., rotating the object and subject 180°), subjects continued to use appropriate digit placement and load force distributions, thus generating sufficient compensatory moments to minimize object roll. In contrast, following rotations that modified the relation between (1) object and hand (e.g. rotating the hand around to the opposite object side), (2) object and body (e.g. rotating subject and hand 180°), or (3) both (e.g. rotating the subject 180°), subjects used the same, yet inappropriate digit placement and load force distribution, as those used prior to the rotation. Consequently, the compensatory moments were insufficient to prevent large object rolls. These findings suggest that representations of learned manipulation of objects with asymmetric mass distributions are specific to the body- and hand-reference frames in which they were learned.

Anticipatory force planning during grasping is based on visual cues about the object’s physical properties and sensorimotor memories of previous actions with grasped objects. Vision can be used to estimate object mass based on the object size to identify and recall sensorimotor memories of previously manipulated objects. It is not known whether subjects can use density cues to identify the object’s center of mass (CM) and create compensatory moments in an anticipatory fashion during initial object lifts to prevent tilt. We asked subjects (n = 8) to estimate CM location of visually symmetric objects of uniform densities (plastic or brass, symmetric CM) and non-uniform densities (mixture of plastic and brass, asymmetric CM). We then asked whether subjects can use density cues to scale fingertip forces when lifting the visually symmetric objects of uniform and non-uniform densities. Subjects were able to accurately estimate an object’s center of mass based on visual density cues. When the mass distribution was uniform, subjects could scale their fingertip forces in an anticipatory fashion based on the estimation. However, despite their ability to explicitly estimate CM location when object density was non-uniform, subjects were unable to scale their fingertip forces to create a compensatory moment and prevent tilt on initial lifts. Hefting object parts in the hand before the experiment did not affect this ability. This suggests a dichotomy between the ability to accurately identify the object’s CM location for objects with non-uniform density cues and the ability to utilize this information to correctly scale their fingertip forces. These results are discussed in the context of possible neural mechanisms underlying sensorimotor integration linking visual cues and anticipatory control of grasping.

Recent studies about sensorimotor control of the human hand have focused on how dexterous manipulation is learned and generalized. Here we address this question by testing the extent to which learned manipulation can be transferred when the contralateral hand is used and/or object orientation is reversed. We asked subjects to use a precision grip to lift a grip device with an asymmetrical mass distribution while minimizing object roll during lifting by generating a compensatory torque. Subjects were allowed to grasp anywhere on the object’s vertical surfaces, and were therefore able to modulate both digit positions and forces. After every block of eight trials performed in one manipulation context (i.e., using the right hand and at a given object orientation), subjects had to lift the same object in the second context for one trial (transfer trial).

Context changes were made by asking subjects to switch the hand used to lift the object and/or rotate the object 180° about a vertical axis. Therefore, three transfer conditions, hand switch (HS), object rotation (OR), and both hand switch and object rotation (HS+OR), were tested and compared with hand matched control groups who did not experience context changes. We found that subjects in all transfer conditions adapted digit positions across multiple transfer trials similar to the learning of control groups, regardless of different changes of contexts. Moreover, subjects in both HS and HS+OR group also adapted digit forces similar to the control group, suggesting independent learning of the left hand. In contrast, the OR group showed significant negative transfer of the compensatory torque due to an inability to adapt digit forces. Our results indicate that internal representations of dexterous manipulation tasks may be primarily built through the hand used for learning and cannot be transferred across hands.