To catch or grasp an object, the initiation of hand closure has to be coordinated with the relative movement between hand and object. In search of a common control of the initiation of hand closure for both tasks (van de Kamp, Bongers, & Zaal, 2010), the authors studied two tasks, catching while keeping the hand stationary and prehension. They showed that the initiation of hand closure could well be based on first-order time-to-contact in the prehension task but not in the catching task studied. The current study tested if the fact that the hand-object gap was closed at a linear rate made that the initiation of hand closure could not be explained on the basis of that same first-order time-to-contact in the catching task. In Experiment 1, the participants had to catch targets that approached at nonlinear rates while keeping the hand stationary. In Experiment 2, the participants were free to move their hand in catching the approaching objects, allowing the closure of the hand-object gap to occur at a nonlinear rate as it would in natural movements. The results showed that the first-order time-to-contact based control of the initiation of hand closure did apply in Experiment 2, whereas it did not in Experiment 1. It was concluded that constraining the catching task such that it became unfamiliar led to a hampered timing, thus obstructing the finding of the common control in the previous study, and in Experiment 1 of the current study.@en

Both in the catching and grasping component of prehension, the hand opens and closes before hand-object contact is made. The initiation of hand closure has to be coordinated with the time course of the decrease of the distance between the hand and the target object, i.e., with the reaching component in prehension or the approach of the target in catching. The authors investigated if this initiation of hand closure could be explained by a common control. For this purpose, they fitted the dynamic timing model to data from the two tasks. In both tasks, participants were asked to get hold of an object approaching along the table top at a constant velocity. In the prehension task, participants could reach out to grasp the object; in the catching task, they were required to keep their hand stationary. In comparison with other accounts, the dynamic timing model performed best in explaining the data. The model proved adequate for the prehension task but not for the current catching task.@en

Prehension has traditionally been seen as the act of coordinated reaching and grasping. However, recently, Smeets and Brenner (in Motor Control 3:237-271, 1999) proposed that we might just as well look at prehension as the combination of two independently moving digits. The hand aperture that has featured prominently in many studies on prehension, according to Smeets and Brenner's "double-pointing hypothesis", is really an emergent property related to the time course of the positions of the two digits moving to their respective end points. We tested this double-pointing hypothesis by perturbing the end position of one of the digits while leaving the end position of the opposing digit unchanged. To this end, we had participants reach for and grasp a metallic object of which the side surfaces could be made to slide in and out. We administered the perturbation right after movement initiation. On several occasions, after perturbing the end position of one digit, we found effects also on the kinematics of the opposing digit. These findings are in conflict with Smeets and Brenner's double-pointing hypothesis.@en