Literature DB >> 26085634

Flexible Control of Safety Margins for Action Based on Environmental Variability.

Alkis M Hadjiosif1, Maurice A Smith2.   

Abstract

To reduce the risk of slip, grip force (GF) control includes a safety margin above the force level ordinarily sufficient for the expected load force (LF) dynamics. The current view is that this safety margin is based on the expected LF dynamics, amounting to a static safety factor like that often used in engineering design. More efficient control could be achieved, however, if the motor system reduces the safety margin when LF variability is low and increases it when this variability is high. Here we show that this is indeed the case by demonstrating that the human motor system sizes the GF safety margin in proportion to an internal estimate of LF variability to maintain a fixed statistical confidence against slip. In contrast to current models of GF control that neglect the variability of LF dynamics, we demonstrate that GF is threefold more sensitive to the SD than the expected value of LF dynamics, in line with the maintenance of a 3-sigma confidence level. We then show that a computational model of GF control that includes a variability-driven safety margin predicts highly asymmetric GF adaptation between increases versus decreases in load. We find clear experimental evidence for this asymmetry and show that it explains previously reported differences in how rapidly GFs and manipulatory forces adapt. This model further predicts bizarre nonmonotonic shapes for GF learning curves, which are faithfully borne out in our experimental data. Our findings establish a new role for environmental variability in the control of action.
Copyright © 2015 the authors 0270-6474/15/359106-16$15.00/0.

Entities:  

Keywords:  force field; grip force; internal model; motor learning; safety margin; variability

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26085634      PMCID: PMC4469737          DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1883-14.2015

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurosci        ISSN: 0270-6474            Impact factor:   6.167


  78 in total

1.  Independent learning of internal models for kinematic and dynamic control of reaching.

Authors:  J W Krakauer; M F Ghilardi; C Ghez
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 24.884

Review 2.  Internal models for motor control and trajectory planning.

Authors:  M Kawato
Journal:  Curr Opin Neurobiol       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 6.627

Review 3.  Computational mechanisms of sensorimotor control.

Authors:  David W Franklin; Daniel M Wolpert
Journal:  Neuron       Date:  2011-11-03       Impact factor: 17.173

4.  Effects of carpal tunnel syndrome on adaptation of multi-digit forces to object texture.

Authors:  Mostafa Afifi; Marco Santello; Jamie A Johnston
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2012-05-22       Impact factor: 3.708

5.  Impedance control and internal model use during the initial stage of adaptation to novel dynamics in humans.

Authors:  Theodore E Milner; David W Franklin
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  2005-06-16       Impact factor: 5.182

6.  Adjustments of fast goal-directed movements in response to an unexpected inertial load.

Authors:  J B Smeets; C J Erkelens; J J Denier van der Gon
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  1990       Impact factor: 1.972

7.  Long-term retention explained by a model of short-term learning in the adaptive control of reaching.

Authors:  Wilsaan M Joiner; Maurice A Smith
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2008-09-10       Impact factor: 2.714

8.  Internal models in the cerebellum.

Authors:  D M Wolpert; R C Miall; M Kawato
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  1998-09-01       Impact factor: 20.229

9.  Grip force adjustments evoked by load force perturbations of a grasped object.

Authors:  K J Cole; J H Abbs
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  1988-10       Impact factor: 2.714

10.  Gain field encoding of the kinematics of both arms in the internal model enables flexible bimanual action.

Authors:  Atsushi Yokoi; Masaya Hirashima; Daichi Nozaki
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2011-11-23       Impact factor: 6.167

View more
  23 in total

1.  Sensory information from a slipping object elicits a rapid and automatic shoulder response.

Authors:  Carlos R Hernandez-Castillo; Rodrigo S Maeda; J Andrew Pruszynski; Jörn Diedrichsen
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2020-02-19       Impact factor: 2.714

2.  The sensorimotor system minimizes prediction error for object lifting when the object's weight is uncertain.

Authors:  Jack Brooks; Anne Thaler
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2017-04-19       Impact factor: 2.714

3.  Intermittent coupling between grip force and load force during oscillations of a hand-held object.

Authors:  Francis Grover; Maurice Lamb; Scott Bonnette; Paula L Silva; Tamara Lorenz; Michael A Riley
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2018-06-22       Impact factor: 1.972

4.  A soft-contact and wrench based approach to study grasp planning and execution.

Authors:  Tarkeshwar Singh; Satyajit Ambike
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2015-10-09       Impact factor: 2.712

5.  Robust Control in Human Reaching Movements: A Model-Free Strategy to Compensate for Unpredictable Disturbances.

Authors:  Frédéric Crevecoeur; Stephen H Scott; Tyler Cluff
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2019-09-05       Impact factor: 6.167

6.  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

Review 7.  The Role of Variability in Motor Learning.

Authors:  Ashesh K Dhawale; Maurice A Smith; Bence P Ölveczky
Journal:  Annu Rev Neurosci       Date:  2017-05-10       Impact factor: 12.449

8.  Did We Get Sensorimotor Adaptation Wrong? Implicit Adaptation as Direct Policy Updating Rather than Forward-Model-Based Learning.

Authors:  Alkis M Hadjiosif; John W Krakauer; Adrian M Haith
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2021-02-08       Impact factor: 6.167

9.  Does the sensorimotor system minimize prediction error or select the most likely prediction during object lifting?

Authors:  Joshua G A Cashaback; Heather R McGregor; Henry C H Pun; Gavin Buckingham; Paul L Gribble
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2016-10-19       Impact factor: 2.714

10.  Stretching the skin immediately enhances perceived stiffness and gradually enhances the predictive control of grip force.

Authors:  Mor Farajian; Raz Leib; Hanna Kossowsky; Tomer Zaidenberg; Ferdinando A Mussa-Ivaldi; Ilana Nisky
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2020-04-15       Impact factor: 8.140

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.