Literature DB >> 16292640

Adaptation and generalization in acceleration-dependent force fields.

Eun Jung Hwang1, Maurice A Smith, Reza Shadmehr.   

Abstract

Any passive rigid inertial object that we hold in our hand, e.g., a tennis racquet, imposes a field of forces on the arm that depends on limb position, velocity, and acceleration. A fundamental characteristic of this field is that the forces due to acceleration and velocity are linearly separable in the intrinsic coordinates of the limb. In order to learn such dynamics with a collection of basis elements, a control system would generalize correctly and therefore perform optimally if the basis elements that were sensitive to limb velocity were not sensitive to acceleration, and vice versa. However, in the mammalian nervous system proprioceptive sensors like muscle spindles encode a nonlinear combination of all components of limb state, with sensitivity to velocity dominating sensitivity to acceleration. Therefore, limb state in the space of proprioception is not linearly separable despite the fact that this separation is a desirable property of control systems that form models of inertial objects. In building internal models of limb dynamics, does the brain use a representation that is optimal for control of inertial objects, or a representation that is closely tied to how peripheral sensors measure limb state? Here we show that in humans, patterns of generalization of reaching movements in acceleration-dependent fields are strongly inconsistent with basis elements that are optimized for control of inertial objects. Unlike a robot controller that models the dynamics of the natural world and represents velocity and acceleration independently, internal models of dynamics that people learn appear to be rooted in the properties of proprioception, nonlinearly responding to the pattern of muscle activation and representing velocity more strongly than acceleration.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16292640      PMCID: PMC1456064          DOI: 10.1007/s00221-005-0163-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Exp Brain Res        ISSN: 0014-4819            Impact factor:   1.972


  23 in total

1.  Structural model of the muscle spindle.

Authors:  Chou-Ching K Lin; Patrick E Crago
Journal:  Ann Biomed Eng       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 3.934

2.  A motor learning strategy reflects neural circuitry for limb control.

Authors:  Kan Singh; Stephen H Scott
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 24.884

Review 3.  Internal models of limb dynamics and the encoding of limb state.

Authors:  Eun Jung Hwang; Reza Shadmehr
Journal:  J Neural Eng       Date:  2005-08-31       Impact factor: 5.379

4.  The motor system does not learn the dynamics of the arm by rote memorization of past experience.

Authors:  M A Conditt; F Gandolfo; F A Mussa-Ivaldi
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  1997-07       Impact factor: 2.714

5.  The central nervous system stabilizes unstable dynamics by learning optimal impedance.

Authors:  E Burdet; R Osu; D W Franklin; T E Milner; M Kawato
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2001-11-22       Impact factor: 49.962

6.  Position and velocity sensitivity of muscle spindles in the cat. I. Primary and secondary endings deprived of fusimotor activation.

Authors:  G Lennerstrand
Journal:  Acta Physiol Scand       Date:  1968-07

7.  Dynamic analysis of muscle spindle endings in the cat using length changes of different length-time relations.

Authors:  G Lennerstrand; U Thoden
Journal:  Acta Physiol Scand       Date:  1968 May-Jun

8.  A model of spindle afferent response to muscle stretch.

Authors:  Z Hasan
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  1983-04       Impact factor: 2.714

Review 9.  Evolving views on the internal operation and functional role of the muscle spindle.

Authors:  P B Matthews
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  1981-11       Impact factor: 5.182

10.  Models of ensemble firing of muscle spindle afferents recorded during normal locomotion in cats.

Authors:  A Prochazka; M Gorassini
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  1998-02-15       Impact factor: 5.182

View more
  31 in total

1.  Postural constraints on movement variability.

Authors:  Daniel R Lametti; David J Ostry
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2010-06-16       Impact factor: 2.714

2.  Linear hypergeneralization of learned dynamics across movement speeds reveals anisotropic, gain-encoding primitives for motor adaptation.

Authors:  Wilsaan M Joiner; Obafunso Ajayi; Gary C Sing; Maurice A Smith
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2010-09-29       Impact factor: 2.714

3.  The nervous system uses nonspecific motor learning in response to random perturbations of varying nature.

Authors:  Kunlin Wei; Daniel Wert; Konrad Körding
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2010-09-22       Impact factor: 2.714

4.  Gait speed influences aftereffect size following locomotor adaptation, but only in certain environments.

Authors:  Rami J Hamzey; Eileen M Kirk; Erin V L Vasudevan
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2016-01-20       Impact factor: 1.972

5.  Motor adaptation as a process of reoptimization.

Authors:  Jun Izawa; Tushar Rane; Opher Donchin; Reza Shadmehr
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2008-03-12       Impact factor: 6.167

6.  Persistence of motor memories reflects statistics of the learning event.

Authors:  Vincent S Huang; Reza Shadmehr
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2009-06-03       Impact factor: 2.714

7.  State dependence of adaptation of force output following movement observation.

Authors:  Paul A Wanda; Gang Li; Kurt A Thoroughman
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2013-06-12       Impact factor: 2.714

8.  Vestibular benefits to task savings in motor adaptation.

Authors:  A M E Sarwary; L P J Selen; W P Medendorp
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2013-06-19       Impact factor: 2.714

9.  Reach adaptation: what determines whether we learn an internal model of the tool or adapt the model of our arm?

Authors:  JoAnn Kluzik; Jörn Diedrichsen; Reza Shadmehr; Amy J Bastian
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2008-07-02       Impact factor: 2.714

10.  Consolidation patterns of human motor memory.

Authors:  Sarah E Criscimagna-Hemminger; Reza Shadmehr
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2008-09-24       Impact factor: 6.167

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.