Literature DB >> 26047134

Sensory control of normal movement and of movement aided by neural prostheses.

Arthur Prochazka1.   

Abstract

Signals from sensory receptors in muscles and skin enter the central nervous system (CNS), where they contribute to kinaesthesia and the generation of motor commands. Many lines of evidence indicate that sensory input from skin receptors, muscle spindles and Golgi tendon organs play the predominant role in this regard. Yet in spite of over 100 years of research on this topic, some quite fundamental questions remain unresolved. How does the CNS choose to use the ability to control muscle spindle sensitivity during voluntary movements? Do spinal reflexes contribute usefully to load compensation, given that the feedback gain must be quite low to avoid instability? To what extent do signals from skin stretch receptors contribute? This article provides a brief review of various theories, past and present, that address these questions. To what extent has the knowledge gained resulted in clinical applications? Muscles paralyzed as a result of spinal cord injury or stroke can be activated by electrical stimulation delivered by neuroprostheses. In practice, at most two or three sensors can be deployed on the human body, providing only a small fraction of the information supplied by the tens of thousands of sensory receptors in animals. Most of the neuroprostheses developed so far do not provide continuous feedback control. Instead, they switch from one state to another when signals from their one or two sensors meet pre-set thresholds (finite state control). The inherent springiness of electrically activated muscle provides a crucial form of feedback control that helps smooth the resulting movements. In spite of the dissimilarities, parallels can be found between feedback control in neuroprostheses and in animals and this can provide surprising insights in both directions.
© 2015 Anatomical Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  feedback control of movement; muscle receptors; muscle spindles; neuroprostheses; sensorimotor control; tendon organs

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26047134      PMCID: PMC4523319          DOI: 10.1111/joa.12311

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Anat        ISSN: 0021-8782            Impact factor:   2.610


  120 in total

1.  Adaptive changes in locomotor control after partial denervation of triceps surae muscles in the cat.

Authors:  V Gritsenko; V Mushahwar; A Prochazka
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  2001-05-15       Impact factor: 5.182

2.  Contribution of stretch reflexes to locomotor control: a modeling study.

Authors:  S Yakovenko; V Gritsenko; A Prochazka
Journal:  Biol Cybern       Date:  2004-01-20       Impact factor: 2.086

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.  An implanted upper-extremity neuroprosthesis using myoelectric control.

Authors:  Kevin L Kilgore; Harry A Hoyen; Anne M Bryden; Ronald L Hart; Michael W Keith; P Hunter Peckham
Journal:  J Hand Surg Am       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 2.230

5.  Attenuation of pathological tremors by functional electrical stimulation. II: Clinical evaluation.

Authors:  M Javidan; J Elek; A Prochazka
Journal:  Ann Biomed Eng       Date:  1992       Impact factor: 3.934

6.  Ensemble firing of muscle afferents recorded during normal locomotion in cats.

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

7.  An externally powered, multichannel, implantable stimulator for versatile control of paralyzed muscle.

Authors:  B Smith; P H Peckham; M W Keith; D D Roscoe
Journal:  IEEE Trans Biomed Eng       Date:  1987-07       Impact factor: 4.538

8.  The cat step cycle; responses of muscle spindles and tendon organs to passive stretch within the locomotor range.

Authors:  G E Goslow; E K Stauffer; W C Nemeth; D G Stuart
Journal:  Brain Res       Date:  1973-09-28       Impact factor: 3.252

9.  An evaluation of length and force feedback to soleus muscles of decerebrate cats.

Authors:  J C Houk; J J Singer; M R Goldman
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  1970-11       Impact factor: 2.714

10.  Control of a skeletal joint by electrical stimulation of antagonists.

Authors:  L Vodovnik; W J Crochetiere; J B Reswick
Journal:  Med Biol Eng       Date:  1967-03
View more
  5 in total

Review 1.  Neurophysiology and neural engineering: a review.

Authors:  Arthur Prochazka
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2017-05-31       Impact factor: 2.714

2.  Force dynamics and synergist muscle activation in stick insects: the effects of using joint torques as mechanical stimuli.

Authors:  Sasha N Zill; Chris J Dallmann; Ansgar Büschges; Sumaiya Chaudhry; Josef Schmitz
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2018-07-18       Impact factor: 2.714

Review 3.  Active sensing without efference copy: referent control of perception.

Authors:  Anatol G Feldman
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2016-06-15       Impact factor: 2.714

4.  Therapeutic Potential of Electromyostimulation (EMS) in Critically Ill Patients-A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Maryam Balke; Marc Teschler; Hendrik Schäfer; Pantea Pape; Frank C Mooren; Boris Schmitz
Journal:  Front Physiol       Date:  2022-05-09       Impact factor: 4.755

5.  Comparison of linear frequency and amplitude modulation for intraneural sensory feedback in bidirectional hand prostheses.

Authors:  G Valle; F M Petrini; I Strauss; F Iberite; E D'Anna; G Granata; M Controzzi; C Cipriani; T Stieglitz; P M Rossini; A Mazzoni; S Raspopovic; S Micera
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-11-12       Impact factor: 4.379

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.