Literature DB >> 19434401

Proprioceptive feedback during point-to-point arm movements is tuned to the expected dynamics of the task.

Mark B Shapiro1, Chuanxin M Niu, Cynthia Poon, Fabian J David, Daniel M Corcos.   

Abstract

It has previously been found that in point-to-point movements against inertial loads, proprioceptive feedback is centrally suppressed in the beginning of movement and is facilitated at a time that is correlated with the expected time of peak velocity. This suggests that the modulation of proprioceptive feedback is governed by the desired movement kinematics. Here we show that in movements against inertial and viscous loads, the correlation of the time when the feedback is facilitated is strongest with the time when the joint torque is expected to be maximal. This suggests that the modulation of proprioceptive feedback is governed by the desired movement dynamics. We applied unexpected perturbations in point-to-point elbow flexion movements against known light and heavy inertial and viscous loads and determined the time and magnitude of responses in the electromyogram (EMG) of the biceps and triceps muscles. In movements against the inertial and viscous loads, the time of the EMG responses was better predicted by the time of the peak joint torque in the unperturbed movement than by the time of peak velocity or the time of peak acceleration or by measures related to the agonist EMG. Moreover, the EMG response changed from a reciprocal pattern in the inertial load conditions to a co-contraction pattern in the viscous load conditions. Our results suggest that during movements against known stable dynamic loads, proprioceptive feedback is tuned to the expected task dynamics and is facilitated so as to maintain muscle stiffness at a time when the muscles are expected to generate maximal force.

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19434401     DOI: 10.1007/s00221-009-1827-0

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


  54 in total

1.  Role of cocontraction in arm movement accuracy.

Authors:  Paul L Gribble; Lucy I Mullin; Nicholas Cothros; Andrew Mattar
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2003-01-22       Impact factor: 2.714

2.  EMG responses to an unexpected load in fast movements are delayed with an increase in the expected movement time.

Authors:  Mark B Shapiro; Gerald L Gottlieb; Daniel M Corcos
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2004-01-14       Impact factor: 2.714

3.  Improvement in linearity and regulation of stiffness that results from actions of stretch reflex.

Authors:  T R Nichols; J C Houk
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  1976-01       Impact factor: 2.714

4.  Endpoint stiffness of the arm is directionally tuned to instability in the environment.

Authors:  David W Franklin; Gary Liaw; Theodore E Milner; Rieko Osu; Etienne Burdet; Mitsuo Kawato
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2007-07-18       Impact factor: 6.167

5.  One-trial adaptation of movement to changes in load.

Authors:  D L Weeks; M P Aubert; A G Feldman; M F Levin
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  1996-01       Impact factor: 2.714

6.  On the voluntary movement of compliant (inertial-viscoelastic) loads by parcellated control mechanisms.

Authors:  G L Gottlieb
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  1996-11       Impact factor: 2.714

7.  Interaction of pre-programmed control and natural stretch reflexes in human landing movements.

Authors:  Martin J N McDonagh; Audrey Duncan
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  2002-11-01       Impact factor: 5.182

8.  Anticipatory and reflex coactivation of antagonist muscles in catching.

Authors:  F Lacquaniti; C Maioli
Journal:  Brain Res       Date:  1987-03-17       Impact factor: 3.252

9.  Catching a ball: contributions of intrinsic muscle stiffness, reflexes, and higher order responses.

Authors:  D J Bennett; M Gorassini; A Prochazka
Journal:  Can J Physiol Pharmacol       Date:  1994-05       Impact factor: 2.273

10.  Motor deficits in patients with large-fiber sensory neuropathy.

Authors:  J N Sanes; K H Mauritz; E V Evarts; M C Dalakas; A Chu
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  1984-02       Impact factor: 11.205

View more
  3 in total

1.  Suppression of proprioceptive feedback control in movement sequences through intermediate targets.

Authors:  C Minos Niu; Daniel M Corcos; Mark B Shapiro
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2011-11-10       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  EMG responses to unexpected perturbations are delayed in slower movements.

Authors:  Fabian J David; Cynthia Poon; Chuanxin M Niu; Daniel M Corcos; Mark B Shapiro
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2009-08-22       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  There and back again: putting the vectorial movement planning hypothesis to a critical test.

Authors:  Eva-Maria Kobak; Simone Cardoso de Oliveira
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2014-04-15       Impact factor: 2.984

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.