The Relation of Unimanual and Bimanual Reaching to Crossing the Midline

The present study assessed the development of reaching for objects positioned in front of the contralateral shoulder. In particular, it examined how the development of crossing the midline is related to the development of bimanual reaching. Twenty infants were observed longitudinally at 12,18, and 2...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Child development Vol. 73; no. 5; pp. 1353 - 1362
Main Authors: Van Hof, P., Van Der Kamp, J., Savelsbergh, G.J.P.
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: Boston, USA and Oxford, UK Blackwell Publishers Inc 01-09-2002
Blackwell Publishers
Blackwell
Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Subjects:
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The present study assessed the development of reaching for objects positioned in front of the contralateral shoulder. In particular, it examined how the development of crossing the midline is related to the development of bimanual reaching. Twenty infants were observed longitudinally at 12,18, and 26 weeks of age while reaching for two balls (3 cm and 8 cm in diameter) located at three positions (ispsilateral, midline, and contralateral). The reaches were analyzed from video recordings. With age, the infants increasingly adapted the number of hands used to the size of the object. The number of reaches crossing the body midline increased with age. Furthermore, the majority of the midline crossings were part of two-handed reaches for the large ball and occurred at or after onset of bimanual reaching. Together, these findings strongly suggest that the development of crossing the body midline emerges in the context of bimanual reaching. It was concluded that the need to grasp a large ball positioned contralaterally with two hands induces midline crossing. Hence, the development of midline crossings is not exclusively dependent on organismic constraints (e.g., the maturation of hemispheric connections), but rather on their interaction with environmental constraints (e.g., object size).
Bibliography:istex:BC0B3489B78F1B8FB1B7AF81558137002E6BD401
ark:/67375/WNG-BB9C7HKG-K
ArticleID:CDEV476
ObjectType-Article-2
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-1
content type line 23
ObjectType-Article-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
ISSN:0009-3920
1467-8624
DOI:10.1111/1467-8624.00476