Force control in manipulation tasks: Comparison of two common methods of grip force calculation

Mehmet Uygur, Goran Prebeg, Slobodan Jaric

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

We compared two standard methods routinely used to assess the grip force (GF; perpendicular force that hand exerts upon the hand-held object) in the studies of coordination of GF and load force (LF; tangential force) in manipulation tasks. A variety of static tasks were tested, and GF-LF coupling (i.e., the maximum cross-correlation between the forces) was assessed. GF was calculated either as the minimum value of the two opposing GF components acting upon the hand-held object (GFmin) or as their average value (GF avg). Although both methods revealed high GF-LF correlation coefficients, most of the data revealed the higher values for GFavg than for GFmin. Therefore, we conclude that the CNS is more likely to take into account GFavg than GFmin when controlling static manipulative actions as well as that GFavg should be the variable of choice in kinetic analyses of static manipulation tasks.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)18-28
Number of pages11
JournalMotor Control
Volume18
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2014

Fingerprint

Hand Strength
Hand

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation
  • Clinical Neurology
  • Physiology (medical)

Cite this

@article{3e176e6bf2f64f5d84930a3d1d15fe6d,
title = "Force control in manipulation tasks: Comparison of two common methods of grip force calculation",
abstract = "We compared two standard methods routinely used to assess the grip force (GF; perpendicular force that hand exerts upon the hand-held object) in the studies of coordination of GF and load force (LF; tangential force) in manipulation tasks. A variety of static tasks were tested, and GF-LF coupling (i.e., the maximum cross-correlation between the forces) was assessed. GF was calculated either as the minimum value of the two opposing GF components acting upon the hand-held object (GFmin) or as their average value (GF avg). Although both methods revealed high GF-LF correlation coefficients, most of the data revealed the higher values for GFavg than for GFmin. Therefore, we conclude that the CNS is more likely to take into account GFavg than GFmin when controlling static manipulative actions as well as that GFavg should be the variable of choice in kinetic analyses of static manipulation tasks.",
author = "Mehmet Uygur and Goran Prebeg and Slobodan Jaric",
year = "2014",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1123/mc.2012-0121",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "18",
pages = "18--28",
journal = "Motor Control",
issn = "1087-1640",
publisher = "Human Kinetics Publishers Inc.",
number = "1",

}

Force control in manipulation tasks : Comparison of two common methods of grip force calculation. / Uygur, Mehmet; Prebeg, Goran; Jaric, Slobodan.

In: Motor Control, Vol. 18, No. 1, 01.01.2014, p. 18-28.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Force control in manipulation tasks

T2 - Comparison of two common methods of grip force calculation

AU - Uygur, Mehmet

AU - Prebeg, Goran

AU - Jaric, Slobodan

PY - 2014/1/1

Y1 - 2014/1/1

N2 - We compared two standard methods routinely used to assess the grip force (GF; perpendicular force that hand exerts upon the hand-held object) in the studies of coordination of GF and load force (LF; tangential force) in manipulation tasks. A variety of static tasks were tested, and GF-LF coupling (i.e., the maximum cross-correlation between the forces) was assessed. GF was calculated either as the minimum value of the two opposing GF components acting upon the hand-held object (GFmin) or as their average value (GF avg). Although both methods revealed high GF-LF correlation coefficients, most of the data revealed the higher values for GFavg than for GFmin. Therefore, we conclude that the CNS is more likely to take into account GFavg than GFmin when controlling static manipulative actions as well as that GFavg should be the variable of choice in kinetic analyses of static manipulation tasks.

AB - We compared two standard methods routinely used to assess the grip force (GF; perpendicular force that hand exerts upon the hand-held object) in the studies of coordination of GF and load force (LF; tangential force) in manipulation tasks. A variety of static tasks were tested, and GF-LF coupling (i.e., the maximum cross-correlation between the forces) was assessed. GF was calculated either as the minimum value of the two opposing GF components acting upon the hand-held object (GFmin) or as their average value (GF avg). Although both methods revealed high GF-LF correlation coefficients, most of the data revealed the higher values for GFavg than for GFmin. Therefore, we conclude that the CNS is more likely to take into account GFavg than GFmin when controlling static manipulative actions as well as that GFavg should be the variable of choice in kinetic analyses of static manipulation tasks.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84893521209&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84893521209&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1123/mc.2012-0121

DO - 10.1123/mc.2012-0121

M3 - Article

C2 - 24496876

AN - SCOPUS:84893521209

VL - 18

SP - 18

EP - 28

JO - Motor Control

JF - Motor Control

SN - 1087-1640

IS - 1

ER -