Literature DB >> 23803330

Immediate compensation for variations in self-generated Coriolis torques related to body dynamics and carried objects.

Pascale Pigeon1, Paul Dizio, James R Lackner.   

Abstract

We have previously shown that the Coriolis torques that result when an arm movement is performed during torso rotation do not affect movement trajectory. Our purpose in the present study was to examine whether torso motion-induced Coriolis and other interaction torques are counteracted during a turn and reach (T&R) movement when the effective mass of the hand is augmented, and whether the dominant arm has an advantage in coordinating intersegmental dynamics as predicted by the dynamic dominance hypothesis (Sainburg RL. Exp Brain Res 142: 241-258, 2002). Subjects made slow and fast T&R movements in the dark to just extinguished targets with either arm, while holding or not holding a 454-g object. Movement endpoints were equally accurate at both speeds, with either hand, and in both weight conditions, but subjects tended to angularly undershoot and produce more variable endpoints for targets requiring greater torso rotation. There were no changes in endpoint accuracy or trajectory deviation over repeated movements. The dominant right arm was more stable in its control of trajectory direction across targets, whereas the nondominant left arm had an improved ability to stop accurately on the target for higher levels of interaction torques. The trajectories to more eccentric targets were straighter when performed at higher speeds but slightly more deviated when subjects held the weight. Subjects did not slow their torso velocity or change the timing of the arm and torso velocities when holding the weight, although there was a slight decrease in their hand velocity relative to the torso. The delay between the onsets of torso and finger movements was almost twice as large for the right arm than the left, suggesting the right arm was better able to account for torso rotation in the arm movement. Holding the weight increased the peak Coriolis torque by 40% at the shoulder and 45% at the elbow and, for the most eccentric target, increased the peak net torque by 12% at the shoulder and 34% at the elbow. In accordance with Sainburg's dynamic dominance hypothesis, the right arm exhibited an advantage for coordinating intersegmental dynamics, showing a more stable finger velocity in relation to the torso across targets, decreasing error variability with movement speed, and more synchronized peaks of finger relative and torso angular velocities in conditions with greater joint torque requirements. The arm used had little effect on the movement path and the magnitude of the joint torques in any of the conditions. These results indicate that compensations for forthcoming Coriolis torque variations take into account the dynamic properties of the body and of external objects, as well as the planned velocities of the torso and arm.

Entities:  

Keywords:  coordination; human; interaction torques; inverse dynamics; reaching movement kinematics

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23803330      PMCID: PMC3763152          DOI: 10.1152/jn.00104.2012

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


  36 in total

1.  Differences in control of limb dynamics during dominant and nondominant arm reaching.

Authors:  R L Sainburg; D Kalakanis
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 2.714

2.  Evidence for a dynamic-dominance hypothesis of handedness.

Authors:  Robert L Sainburg
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2001-11-22       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  Utilization and compensation of interaction torques during ball-throwing movements.

Authors:  Masaya Hirashima; Kazutoshi Kudo; Tatsuyuki Ohtsuki
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2002-12-27       Impact factor: 2.714

4.  Handedness: dominant arm advantages in control of limb dynamics.

Authors:  Leia B Bagesteiro; Robert L Sainburg
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 2.714

5.  Hierarchical control of different elbow-wrist coordination patterns.

Authors:  N V Dounskaia; S P Swinnen; C B Walter; A J Spaepen; S M Verschueren
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  1998-08       Impact factor: 1.972

6.  Deliberate utilization of interaction torques brakes elbow extension in a fast throwing motion.

Authors:  Jon Hore; Derek B Debicki; Paul L Gribble; Sherry Watts
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2011-04-06       Impact factor: 1.972

7.  Control of limb dynamics in normal subjects and patients without proprioception.

Authors:  R L Sainburg; M F Ghilardi; H Poizner; C Ghez
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  1995-02       Impact factor: 2.714

Review 8.  Sequential motions of body segments in striking and throwing skills: descriptions and explanations.

Authors:  C A Putnam
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  1993       Impact factor: 2.712

9.  Dynamic interactions between limb segments during planar arm movement.

Authors:  M J Hollerbach; T Flash
Journal:  Biol Cybern       Date:  1982       Impact factor: 2.086

10.  The effect of viewing the static hand prior to movement onset on pointing kinematics and variability.

Authors:  Y Rossetti; G Stelmach; M Desmurget; C Prablanc; M Jeannerod
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  1994       Impact factor: 1.972

View more
  10 in total

1.  Decisions in motion: passive body acceleration modulates hand choice.

Authors:  Romy S Bakker; Roel H A Weijer; Robert J van Beers; Luc P J Selen; W Pieter Medendorp
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2017-03-01       Impact factor: 2.714

2.  Task-dependent vestibular feedback responses in reaching.

Authors:  Johannes Keyser; W Pieter Medendorp; Luc P J Selen
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2017-03-29       Impact factor: 2.714

3.  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

4.  Decisions in motion: vestibular contributions to saccadic target selection.

Authors:  L Rincon-Gonzalez; L P J Selen; K Halfwerk; M Koppen; B D Corneil; W P Medendorp
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2016-06-08       Impact factor: 2.714

5.  Compensating for intersegmental dynamics across the shoulder, elbow, and wrist joints during feedforward and feedback control.

Authors:  Rodrigo S Maeda; Tyler Cluff; Paul L Gribble; J Andrew Pruszynski
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2017-07-12       Impact factor: 2.714

6.  Handedness results from complementary hemispheric dominance, not global hemispheric dominance: evidence from mechanically coupled bilateral movements.

Authors:  Elizabeth J Woytowicz; Kelly P Westlake; Jill Whitall; Robert L Sainburg
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2018-05-09       Impact factor: 2.714

Review 7.  Convergent models of handedness and brain lateralization.

Authors:  Robert L Sainburg
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2014-10-08

8.  Handedness Matters for Motor Control But Not for Prediction.

Authors:  James Mathew; Fabrice R Sarlegna; Pierre-Michel Bernier; Frederic R Danion
Journal:  eNeuro       Date:  2019-06-06

9.  Single versus dual-rate learning when exposed to Coriolis forces during reaching movements.

Authors:  Judith L Rudolph; Janny C Stapel; Luc P J Selen; W Pieter Medendorp
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-10-19       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Changes in Predictive Task Switching with Age and with Cognitive Load.

Authors:  Shelly Levy-Tzedek
Journal:  Front Aging Neurosci       Date:  2017-11-22       Impact factor: 5.750

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.