Literature DB >> 28003410

Proximal-distal differences in movement smoothness reflect differences in biomechanics.

Layne H Salmond1, Andrew D Davidson1, Steven K Charles2,3.   

Abstract

Smoothness is a hallmark of healthy movement. Past research indicates that smoothness may be a side product of a control strategy that minimizes error. However, this is not the only reason for smooth movements. Our musculoskeletal system itself contributes to movement smoothness: the mechanical impedance (inertia, damping, and stiffness) of our limbs and joints resists sudden change, resulting in a natural smoothing effect. How the biomechanics and neural control interact to result in an observed level of smoothness is not clear. The purpose of this study is to 1) characterize the smoothness of wrist rotations, 2) compare it with the smoothness of planar shoulder-elbow (reaching) movements, and 3) determine the cause of observed differences in smoothness. Ten healthy subjects performed wrist and reaching movements involving different targets, directions, and speeds. We found wrist movements to be significantly less smooth than reaching movements and to vary in smoothness with movement direction. To identify the causes underlying these observations, we tested a number of hypotheses involving differences in bandwidth, signal-dependent noise, speed, impedance anisotropy, and movement duration. Our simulations revealed that proximal-distal differences in smoothness reflect proximal-distal differences in biomechanics: the greater impedance of the shoulder-elbow filters neural noise more than the wrist. In contrast, differences in signal-dependent noise and speed were not sufficiently large to recreate the observed differences in smoothness. We also found that the variation in wrist movement smoothness with direction appear to be caused by, or at least correlated with, differences in movement duration, not impedance anisotropy.NEW & NOTEWORTHY This article presents the first thorough characterization of the smoothness of wrist rotations (flexion-extension and radial-ulnar deviation) and comparison with the smoothness of reaching (shoulder-elbow) movements. We found wrist rotations to be significantly less smooth than reaching movements and determined that this difference reflects proximal-distal differences in biomechanics: the greater impedance (inertia, damping, stiffness) of the shoulder-elbow filters noise in the command signal more than the impedance of the wrist.
Copyright © 2017 the American Physiological Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  filter; impedance; jerk; kinematics; smoothness

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 28003410      PMCID: PMC5350272          DOI: 10.1152/jn.00712.2015

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


  70 in total

1.  Low frequency corlico-muscular coherence during voluntary rapid movements of the wrist joint.

Authors:  Bernard A Conway; Campbell Reid; David M Halliday
Journal:  Brain Topogr       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 3.020

2.  Effector dynamics of rhythmic wrist activity and its implications for (modeling) bimanual coordination.

Authors:  Arne Ridderikhoff; C Lieke E Peper; Richard G Carson; Peter J Beek
Journal:  Hum Mov Sci       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 2.161

3.  The curvature and variability of wrist and arm movements.

Authors:  Steven K Charles; Neville Hogan
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2010-04-11       Impact factor: 1.972

4.  Dynamics of wrist rotations.

Authors:  Steven K Charles; Neville Hogan
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2010-12-04       Impact factor: 2.712

5.  Submovement changes characterize generalization of motor recovery after stroke.

Authors:  Laura Dipietro; Hermano I Krebs; Susan E Fasoli; Bruce T Volpe; Neville Hogan
Journal:  Cortex       Date:  2008-06-14       Impact factor: 4.027

6.  Damping of the wrist joint during voluntary movement.

Authors:  T E Milner; C Cloutier
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 1.972

7.  Muscle short-range stiffness can be used to estimate the endpoint stiffness of the human arm.

Authors:  Xiao Hu; Wendy M Murray; Eric J Perreault
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2011-02-02       Impact factor: 2.714

8.  The coordination of arm movements: an experimentally confirmed mathematical model.

Authors:  T Flash; N Hogan
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  1985-07       Impact factor: 6.167

9.  Adaptation to visuomotor transformations: consolidation, interference, and forgetting.

Authors:  John W Krakauer; Claude Ghez; M Felice Ghilardi
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2005-01-12       Impact factor: 6.167

10.  Quantitative assessment of infant reaching movements.

Authors:  L Fetters; J Todd
Journal:  J Mot Behav       Date:  1987-06       Impact factor: 1.328

View more
  6 in total

1.  Moving slowly is hard for humans: limitations of dynamic primitives.

Authors:  Se-Woong Park; Hamal Marino; Steven K Charles; Dagmar Sternad; Neville Hogan
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2017-03-29       Impact factor: 2.714

Review 2.  The neural mechanisms of manual dexterity.

Authors:  Anton R Sobinov; Sliman J Bensmaia
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurosci       Date:  2021-10-28       Impact factor: 38.755

3.  Fundamental Principles of Tremor Propagation in the Upper Limb.

Authors:  Andrew D Davidson; Steven K Charles
Journal:  Ann Biomed Eng       Date:  2016-12-12       Impact factor: 3.934

4.  Biomechanical muscle stiffness measures of extensor digitorum explain potential mechanism of McArdle sign.

Authors:  Nathan D Schilaty; Filippo Savoldi; Zahra Nasr; Adriana M Delgado; Lawrence J Berglund; Brian G Weinshenker
Journal:  Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)       Date:  2021-01-23       Impact factor: 2.063

5.  Smoothness: an Unexplored Window into Coordinated Running Proficiency.

Authors:  John Kiely; Craig Pickering; David J Collins
Journal:  Sports Med Open       Date:  2019-11-09

6.  A survey of human shoulder functional kinematic representations.

Authors:  Rakesh Krishnan; Niclas Björsell; Elena M Gutierrez-Farewik; Christian Smith
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2018-10-26       Impact factor: 2.602

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.