Literature DB >> 26354914

Apparent and Actual Trajectory Control Depend on the Behavioral Context in Upper Limb Motor Tasks.

Tyler Cluff1, Stephen H Scott2.   

Abstract

A central problem in motor neuroscience is to understand how we select, plan, and control motor actions. An influential idea is that the motor system computes and implements a desired limb trajectory, an intermediary control process between the behavioral goal (reach a spatial goal) and motor commands to move the limb. The most compelling evidence for trajectory control is that corrective responses are directed back toward the unperturbed trajectory when the limb is disturbed during movement. However, the idea of trajectory control conflicts with optimal control theories that emphasize goal-directed motor corrections. Here we show that corrective responses in human subjects can deviate back toward the unperturbed trajectory, but these reversals were only present when there were explicit limits on movement time. Our second experiment asked whether trajectory control could be generated if the trajectory was made an explicit goal of the task. Participants countered unexpected loads while reaching to a static goal, tracking a moving target, or maintaining their hand within a visually constrained path to a static goal. Corrective responses were directed back toward the constrained path or to intercept the moving target. However, corrections back to the unperturbed path disappeared when reaching to the static target. Long-latency muscle responses paralleled changes in the behavioral goal in both sets of experiments, but goal-directed responses were delayed by 15-25 ms when tracking the moving goal. Our results show the motor system can behave like a trajectory controller but only if a "desired trajectory" is the goal of the task. Significance statement: One of the most influential ideas in motor control is that the motor system computes a "desired trajectory" when reaching to a spatial goal. Here we revisit the experimental paradigm from seminal papers supporting trajectory control to illustrate that corrective responses appear to return to the original trajectory of the limb, but only if there is an imposed timing constraint. We then provide direct evidence that the human motor system can behave like a trajectory controller, and return the limb to its original trajectory when a specified trajectory is the goal of the task. Our results show that the motor system is capable of a spectrum of corrective responses that depend on the behavioral goal of the motor task.
Copyright © 2015 the authors 0270-6474/15/3512465-12$15.00/0.

Entities:  

Keywords:  feedback control; goal-directed corrections; mechanical perturbations; muscle stretch responses; reaching; task constraints

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26354914      PMCID: PMC6605398          DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0902-15.2015

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


  54 in total

1.  Apparatus for measuring and perturbing shoulder and elbow joint positions and torques during reaching.

Authors:  S H Scott
Journal:  J Neurosci Methods       Date:  1999-07-15       Impact factor: 2.390

2.  Direct cortical control of muscle activation in voluntary arm movements: a model.

Authors:  E Todorov
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 24.884

3.  The cerebellum and the timing of coordinated eye and hand tracking.

Authors:  R C Miall; G Z Reckess
Journal:  Brain Cogn       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 2.310

4.  Dissociation between hand motion and population vectors from neural activity in motor cortex.

Authors:  S H Scott; P L Gribble; K M Graham; D W Cabel
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2001-09-13       Impact factor: 49.962

5.  Basic principles of ROC analysis.

Authors:  C E Metz
Journal:  Semin Nucl Med       Date:  1978-10       Impact factor: 4.446

6.  A motor learning strategy reflects neural circuitry for limb control.

Authors:  Kan Singh; Stephen H Scott
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 24.884

7.  Augmented Feedback Presented in a Virtual Environment Accelerates Learning of a Difficult Motor Task.

Authors:  E Todorov; R Shadmehr; E Bizzi
Journal:  J Mot Behav       Date:  1997-06       Impact factor: 1.328

8.  Optimal feedback control as a theory of motor coordination.

Authors:  Emanuel Todorov; Michael I Jordan
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 24.884

9.  What triggers catch-up saccades during visual tracking?

Authors:  Sophie de Brouwer; Demet Yuksel; Gunnar Blohm; Marcus Missal; Philippe Lefèvre
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 2.714

10.  Linked target selection for saccadic and smooth pursuit eye movements.

Authors:  J L Gardner; S G Lisberger
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2001-03-15       Impact factor: 6.167

View more
  12 in total

1.  Movement Imitation via an Abstract Trajectory Representation in Dorsal Premotor Cortex.

Authors:  Aaron L Wong; Steven A Jax; Louisa L Smith; Laurel J Buxbaum; John W Krakauer
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2019-02-25       Impact factor: 6.167

Review 2.  Modeling the Role of Sensory Feedback in Speech Motor Control and Learning.

Authors:  Benjamin Parrell; John Houde
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2019-08-29       Impact factor: 2.297

Review 3.  Perspectives on classical controversies about the motor cortex.

Authors:  Mohsen Omrani; Matthew T Kaufman; Nicholas G Hatsopoulos; Paul D Cheney
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2017-06-14       Impact factor: 2.714

4.  A motor planning stage represents the shape of upcoming movement trajectories.

Authors:  Aaron L Wong; Jeff Goldsmith; John W Krakauer
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2016-04-20       Impact factor: 2.714

5.  Visual Feedback Processing of the Limb Involves Two Distinct Phases.

Authors:  Kevin P Cross; Tyler Cluff; Tomohiko Takei; Stephen H Scott
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2019-07-15       Impact factor: 6.167

6.  Optimal reaching trajectories based on feedforward control.

Authors:  Yoshiaki Taniai; Tomohide Naniwa; Jun Nishii
Journal:  Biol Cybern       Date:  2022-06-04       Impact factor: 3.072

Review 7.  Decision-making in sensorimotor control.

Authors:  Jason P Gallivan; Craig S Chapman; Daniel M Wolpert; J Randall Flanagan
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurosci       Date:  2018-09       Impact factor: 34.870

8.  Direction-dependent arm kinematics reveal optimal integration of gravity cues.

Authors:  Jeremie Gaveau; Bastien Berret; Dora E Angelaki; Charalambos Papaxanthis
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2016-11-02       Impact factor: 8.140

9.  Rapid Visuomotor Responses Reflect Value-Based Decisions.

Authors:  Timothy J Carroll; Daniel McNamee; James N Ingram; Daniel M Wolpert
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2019-03-08       Impact factor: 6.167

10.  Distributed task-specific processing of somatosensory feedback for voluntary motor control.

Authors:  Mohsen Omrani; Chantelle D Murnaghan; J Andrew Pruszynski; Stephen H Scott
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2016-04-14       Impact factor: 8.140

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.