Home Page
About SAEN
Articles and Reports
Contact Us
Events and Campaigns
Fact Sheets
Financial Information
How You Can Help
Make a Donation, Please!
Media Coverage
Newsletters
Petitions
Picture Archive
Press Releases
Resources and Links
Grass Roots Org. List
|
Stop Animal
Exploitation NOW!
S. A. E. N.
"Exposing the truth to wipe
out animal experimentation"
Government Grants Promoting Cruelty to Animals
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
CLAUDIA M. HENDRIX - Primate Testing - 2006
Grant Number: 5F32NS047798-03
Project Title: Neuronal Encoding of Power Versus Precision Grasp
PI Information: CLAUDIA M. HENDRIX,
[email protected]
Abstract: DESCRIPTION (provided by applicant):
This proposal examines the neural control representation of
reach-to-grasp in non-human primates. The neuronal coding of
reach-to-grasp in the primary motor cortex, M1, and the ventral premotor
cortex, PMv, will be examined within the context of a widely accepted
categorical scheme for prehensile movements; power versus precision
grasp. Although deeply embedded in the literature and researchers'
theoretical framework, there is limited support for a central
representation of a precision versus power categorical scheme. The
objective of this grant proposal is to provide evidence that power and
precision grasps lie on a continuum of hand shaping control strategies
rather than as two distinct control strategies. The general hypothesis
of a prehensile continuum will be tested via four specific aims: i)
investigate the effects of object constraint on grasp type, ii)
demonstrate that power and precision grasps will vary systematically
along a 2-dimensional continuum of hand shape and grasp force, iii)
fully explore the relationship between force production and hand
shaping, and iv) demonstrate that representations of a prehensile
continuum are found in both PMv and M1. Cell modulations, kinematic and
kinetic variables, and EMG muscle activity will be recorded and
analyzed. This research will provide insight into the control mechanisms
involved in highly complex prehensile movements. These findings can be
translated into clinically relevant terms for the
habilitation/rehabilitation of neurological patients with motor control
impairments.
Thesaurus Terms:
body movement, hand, motor cortex, muscle strength, neuron
biomechanics, central nervous system, muscle function, psychomotor
function Macaca mulatta, electromyography, neuropsychological test,
postdoctoral investigator, statistics /biometry
Institution: UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA TWIN CITIES
450 MCNAMARA ALUMNI CENTER, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 554552070
Fiscal Year: 2006
Department: NEUROSCIENCE
Project Start: 01-JAN-2004
Project End: 31-DEC-2006
ICD: NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS AND STROKE
IRG: ZRG1
J Neurophysiol 91: 2826-2837, 2004. First published February 4, 2004
Monkey Hand Postural Synergies During Reach-to-Grasp
in the Absence of Vision of the Hand and Object
Carolyn R. Mason1, Lalin S.
Theverapperuma2, Claudia M. Hendrix1
and Timothy J. Ebner1
Departments of 1Neuroscience and
2Electrical and Computer Engineering,
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455
Submitted 8 July 2003; accepted in final form 28 January 2004
Two rhesus monkeys (1 female, G, at 5.2 kg, 1 male, L, at 6.8 kg)
were trained to reach and grasp objects with an overhand power grasp
using specific force levels. Monkey L was trained using its right hand
on 15 objects, and monkey G was trained using its left hand on 16
objects. Both monkeys had been performing the task for 2 yr (monkey G
for 2 yr and monkey L for 3 yr). The extra object was a small cube and
required a pinch grasp. The animals sat in a primate chair with their
heads fixed and facing a computer monitor (Fig. 1). The animals
initiated a trial by placing their hand on a start pad located by their
side while exerting a force for a randomized period (1�1.5 s). A red box
and two blue bars would then appear on the monitor. The red box was a go
cue that signaled the animals to reach (15 cm) and grasp the target
object. The two blue bars indicated the force window within which the
monkeys were to maintain the grasp force during the static portion of
object grasp (i.e., target object hold). A red slider bar provided
visual feedback to the monkeys of the grasp force being generated. If
the monkey successfully maintained the specified force level for 1.5 s,
it received a juice reward. At the completion of 25 successful trials,
the object was changed. The monkeys were not able to see their hands or
the objects. However, prior to initiating the first trial of each block,
the animals were allowed to touch the target object. Therefore the
animals were informed of the target object to be used before initiating
a new block of trials. The number of trials needed for the monkey to
adapt its hand posture to the new object was not explicitly analyzed.
However, the over-training of the monkeys and their a priori knowledge
(through touch) of which new object was being presented resulted in
little or no adaptation period during the actual data collection period.
Behavioral data collected included specified force level, force
generated, and timing information.
|
Please email: CLAUDIA M. HENDRIX,
[email protected] to protest the inhumane use of animals in this
experiment. We would also love to know about your efforts with this
cause:
[email protected]
Return to Grants
Return to University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
Return to Facility Reports and Information
Return to Resources and Links
Rats, mice, birds, amphibians and other animals have
been excluded from coverage by the Animal Welfare Act. Therefore research
facility reports do not include these animals. As a result of this
situation, a blank report, or one with few animals listed, does not mean
that a facility has not performed experiments on non-reportable animals. A
blank form does mean that the facility in question has not used covered
animals (primates, dogs, cats, rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, pigs,
sheep, goats, etc.). Rats and mice alone are believed to comprise over 90%
of the animals used in experimentation. Therefore the majority of animals
used at research facilities are not even counted.
|