Literature DB >> 12091548

Manipulating objects with internal degrees of freedom: evidence for model-based control.

Jonathan B Dingwell1, Christopher D Mah, Ferdinando A Mussa-Ivaldi.   

Abstract

There is substantial evidence that humans possess an accurate and adaptable internal model of the dynamics of their arm that is utilized by the nervous system for controlling arm movements. However, it is not known if such model-based strategies are used for controlling dynamical systems outside the body. The need to predict events in the external world is not restricted to the execution of reaching movements or to the handling of rigid tools. Model-based control may also be critical for performing functional tasks with non-rigid objects such as stabilizing a cup of coffee. The present study investigated the strategies used by humans to control simple mass-spring objects. Subjects made straight line reaching movements to a target while interacting with a robotic manipulandum that simulated the dynamics of a one-dimensional mass on a spring. After learning, neither hand nor object kinematics returned to those of free reaching, suggesting that this task was not learned as a perturbation of free reaching. Although there are control strategies (such as slowing the movement of the hand) that would require little or no knowledge of object dynamics, subjects did not adopt these strategies. Instead, they tailored their motor commands to the particular object being manipulated. When object parameters were unexpectedly altered in a way that required no changes in kinematics to successfully complete the task, subjects nonetheless exhibited substantial kinematic deviations. These deviations were consistent with those predicted by a model of the arm-plus-object system driven by a low-impedance controller that incorporated an explicit inverse model of arm-plus-object dynamics. The observed behavior could not be reproduced by a controller that relied on modulating hand impedance alone with no inverse model. These results were therefore consistent with the hypothesis that subjects learn to control the kinematics of manipulated objects by forming an internal model that specified the forces to be exerted by the hand on the object to induce the desired motion of that object.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12091548     DOI: 10.1152/jn.2002.88.1.222

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurophysiol        ISSN: 0022-3077            Impact factor:   2.714


  29 in total

1.  Visual, motor and attentional influences on proprioceptive contributions to perception of hand path rectilinearity during reaching.

Authors:  Robert A Scheidt; Kyle P Lillis; Scott J Emerson
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2010-06-08       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  Energy margins in dynamic object manipulation.

Authors:  Christopher J Hasson; Tian Shen; Dagmar Sternad
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2012-05-16       Impact factor: 2.714

3.  Learning a stick-balancing task involves task-specific coupling between posture and hand displacements.

Authors:  Tyler Cluff; Jason Boulet; Ramesh Balasubramaniam
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2011-06-26       Impact factor: 1.972

4.  Neural representation of muscle dynamics in voluntary movement control.

Authors:  Christopher J Hasson
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2014-03-26       Impact factor: 1.972

5.  Eye tracking a self-moved target with complex hand-target dynamics.

Authors:  Caroline Landelle; Anna Montagnini; Laurent Madelain; Frederic Danion
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2016-07-27       Impact factor: 2.714

6.  Model of a bilateral Brown-type central pattern generator for symmetric and asymmetric locomotion.

Authors:  Anton Sobinov; Sergiy Yakovenko
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2017-11-29       Impact factor: 2.714

Review 7.  Sensory motor remapping of space in human-machine interfaces.

Authors:  Ferdinando A Mussa-Ivaldi; Maura Casadio; Zachary C Danziger; Kristine M Mosier; Robert A Scheidt
Journal:  Prog Brain Res       Date:  2011       Impact factor: 2.453

8.  Visuo-proprioceptive interactions during adaptation of the human reach.

Authors:  Timothy Judkins; Robert A Scheidt
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2013-11-20       Impact factor: 2.714

9.  Should the Equilibrium Point Hypothesis (EPH) be Considered a Scientific Theory?

Authors:  Robert L Sainburg
Journal:  Motor Control       Date:  2014-11-10       Impact factor: 1.422

Review 10.  Sensorimotor control of contact force.

Authors:  John F Soechting; Martha Flanders
Journal:  Curr Opin Neurobiol       Date:  2008-12-08       Impact factor: 6.627

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.