Premium
Kinematic characteristics of second‐order motor planning and performance in 6‐ and 10‐year‐old children and adults: Effects of age and task constraints
Author(s) -
Domellöf Erik,
Bäckström Anna,
Johansson AnnaMaria,
Rönnqvist Louise,
Hofsten Claes,
Rosander Kerstin
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
developmental psychobiology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.055
H-Index - 93
eISSN - 1098-2302
pISSN - 0012-1630
DOI - 10.1002/dev.21911
Subject(s) - kinematics , prehensile tail , psychology , task (project management) , physical medicine and rehabilitation , age groups , rotation (mathematics) , grasp , displacement (psychology) , contrast (vision) , motor planning , developmental psychology , audiology , simulation , mathematics , computer science , cognitive psychology , engineering , artificial intelligence , medicine , demography , geometry , physics , systems engineering , classical mechanics , sociology , psychotherapist , anatomy , programming language
This study explored age‐related differences in motor planning as expressed in arm‐hand kinematics during a sequential peg moving task with varying demands on goal insertion complexity (second‐order planning). The peg was a vertical cylinder with either a circular or semicircular base. The task was to transport the peg between two positions and rotate it various amounts horizontally before fitting into its final position. The amount of rotation required was either 0°, 90°, 180°, or −90°. The reaching for the peg, the displacement of it, and the way the rotation was accomplished was analyzed. Assessments of end state comfort, goal interpretation errors, and type of grip used were also included. Participants were two groups of typically developing children, one younger ( M age = 6.7 years) and one older ( M age = 10.3 years), and one adult group ( M age = 34.9 years). The children, particularly 6‐year‐olds, displayed less efficient prehensile movement organization than adults. Related to less efficient motor planning, 6‐year‐olds, mainly, had shorter reach‐to‐grasp onset latencies, higher velocities, and shorter time to peak velocities, and longer grasp durations than adults. Importantly, the adults rotated the peg during transport. In contrast, the children made corrective rotations after the hand had arrived at the goal.