During power grasp, the number of local force maxima reflects either the central nervous system’s preferential use of particular hand regions, or anatomical constraints, or both. Previously, both bimodal and trimodal force maxima have been hypothesized for power grasp of a cylindrical handle. Here we measure the number of local force maxima, with a resolution of 4.8°, when performing pushing and pulling efforts in the plane perpendicular to the cylinder’s long axis. Twelve participants produced external forces to eight targets. The number of contacts was defined as the number of local maxima exceeding background variance. A minimum of four and a maximum of five discrete contacts were observed in all subjects at the distal phalanges and metacarpal heads. We thus reject previous hypotheses of bimodal or trimodal force control for cylindrical power grasping. Since we presently observed only 4–5 contacts, which is rather low considering the hand’s kinematic flexibility in the flexion plane, we also reject hypotheses of continuous contact, which are inherent to current grasping taxonomy. A modification to current grasping taxonomy is proposed wherein power grasp contains separate branches for continuous and discrete contacts, and where power and precision grasps are distinguished only by grasp manipulability.
Todd C. Pataky, Greg P. Slota, Mark L. Latash and Vladimir M. Zatsiorsky
Bastiaan Breine, Philippe Malcolm, Veerle Segers, Joeri Gerlo, Rud Derie, Todd Pataky, Edward C. Frederick and Dirk De Clercq
In running, foot contact patterns (rear-, mid-, or forefoot contact) influence impact intensity and initial ankle and foot kinematics. The aim of the study was to compare impact intensity and its spatial distribution under the foot between different foot contact patterns. Forty-nine subjects ran at 3.2 m·s−1 over a level runway while ground reaction forces (GRF) and shoe-surface pressures were recorded and foot contact pattern was determined. A 4-zone footmask (forefoot, midfoot, medial and lateral rearfoot) assessed the spatial distribution of the vertical GRF under the foot. We calculated peak vertical instantaneous loading rate of the GRF (VILR) per foot zone as the impact intensity measure. Midfoot contact patterns were shown to have the lowest, and atypical rearfoot contact patterns the highest impact intensities, respectively. The greatest local impact intensity was mainly situated under the rear- and midfoot for the typical rearfoot contact patterns, under the midfoot for the atypical rearfoot contact patterns, and under the mid- and forefoot for the midfoot contact patterns. These findings indicate that different foot contact patterns could benefit from cushioning in different shoe zones.