Literature DB >> 17224242

Motor planning of arm movements is direction-dependent in the gravity field.

R Gentili1, V Cahouet, C Papaxanthis.   

Abstract

In the present study we analyzed kinematic and dynamic features of arm movements in order to better elucidate how the motor system integrates environmental constraints (gravity) into motor planning and control processes. To reach this aim, we experimentally manipulated the mechanical effects of gravity on the arm while maintaining arm inertia constant (i.e. the distribution of the mass around the shoulder joint). Six subjects performed single-joint arm movements (rotation around the shoulder joint) in both sagittal (upward, U, versus downward, D) and horizontal (left, L, versus right, R) planes, at different amplitudes and from different initial positions. Under these conditions, shoulder gravitational torques (SGTs) significantly varied when arm movements were performed in the sagittal but not in the horizontal plane. Contrary to SGTs, arm inertia remained constant and similar for both horizontal and sagittal planes since subjects performed arm movements with only one degree of freedom. All subjects, whatever the movement direction, appropriately scaled shoulder joint kinematic parameters according to movement amplitude. Furthermore, peak velocity and movement duration were equivalent for both horizontal and sagittal planes. Interestingly, some kinematic parameters significantly differed according to U/D but not L/R directions. Specifically, acceleration duration was greater for D than U movements, while the opposite was true for peak acceleration. Consequently, although vertical and horizontal arm movements shared a general common strategy (i.e. scaling law), the kinematic asymmetries between U and D arm movements, especially those that reflect central planning process (i.e. peak acceleration), indicated different motor intentions regarding the direction of the upcoming movement. These findings indicate that the interaction of the arm with the dynamics of the environment is internally represented during the generation of arm trajectories.

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17224242     DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2006.11.035

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neuroscience        ISSN: 0306-4522            Impact factor:   3.590


  33 in total

1.  Proprioceptively guided reaching movements in 3D space: effects of age, task complexity and handedness.

Authors:  T S Schaap; T I Gonzales; T W J Janssen; S H Brown
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2014-11-15       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  Movement strategies in vertical aiming of older adults.

Authors:  Simon J Bennett; Digby Elliott; Andre Rodacki
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2011-11-25       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  Reaching while standing in microgravity: a new postural solution to oversimplify movement control.

Authors:  Claudia Casellato; Michele Tagliabue; Alessandra Pedrocchi; Charalambos Papaxanthis; Giancarlo Ferrigno; Thierry Pozzo
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2011-12-08       Impact factor: 1.972

4.  Different damping responses explain vertical endpoint error differences between visual conditions.

Authors:  Jan M Hondzinski; Chelsea M Soebbing; Allyson E French; Sara A Winges
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2016-01-28       Impact factor: 1.972

5.  Invariant geometric characteristics of spatial arm motion.

Authors:  Satyajit Ambike; James P Schmiedeler
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2013-06-15       Impact factor: 1.972

6.  Direction-dependent differences in temporal kinematics for vertical prehension movements.

Authors:  Shinji Yamamoto; Keisuke Kushiro
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2013-11-29       Impact factor: 1.972

7.  Interlimb differences in coordination of unsupported reaching movements.

Authors:  Jacob E Schaffer; Robert L Sainburg
Journal:  Neuroscience       Date:  2017-03-24       Impact factor: 3.590

8.  Initial information prior to movement onset influences kinematics of upward arm pointing movements.

Authors:  Célia Rousseau; Charalambos Papaxanthis; Jérémie Gaveau; Thierry Pozzo; Olivier White
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2016-07-13       Impact factor: 2.714

9.  Do we use a priori knowledge of gravity when making elbow rotations?

Authors:  Ilona J Pinter; Arthur J van Soest; Maarten F Bobbert; Jeroen B J Smeets
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2011-12-29       Impact factor: 1.972

10.  Body orientation contributes to modelling the effects of gravity for target interception in humans.

Authors:  Barbara La Scaleia; Francesco Lacquaniti; Myrka Zago
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  2019-02-06       Impact factor: 5.182

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.