| Literature DB >> 28348530 |
Yi-Ching Chen1, Yen-Ting Lin2, Gwo-Ching Chang3, Ing-Shiou Hwang4.
Abstract
The detection of error information is an essential prerequisite of a feedback-based movement. This study investigated the differential behavior and neurophysiological mechanisms of a cyclic force-tracking task using error-reducing and error-enhancing feedback. The discharge patterns of a relatively large number of motor units (MUs) were assessed with custom-designed multi-channel surface electromyography following mathematical decomposition of the experimentally-measured signals. Force characteristics, force-discharge relation, and phase-locking cortical activities in the contralateral motor cortex to individual MUs were contrasted among the low (LSF), normal (NSF), and high scaling factor (HSF) conditions, in which the sizes of online execution errors were displayed with various amplification ratios. Along with a spectral shift of the force output toward a lower band, force output with a more phase-lead became less irregular, and tracking accuracy was worse in the LSF condition than in the HSF condition. The coherent discharge of high phasic (HP) MUs with the target signal was greater, and inter-spike intervals were larger, in the LSF condition than in the HSF condition. Force-tracking in the LSF condition manifested with stronger phase-locked EEG activity in the contralateral motor cortex to discharge of the (HP) MUs (LSF > NSF, HSF). The coherent discharge of the (HP) MUs during the cyclic force-tracking predominated the force-discharge relation, which increased inversely to the error scaling factor. In conclusion, the size of visualized error gates motor unit discharge, force-discharge relation, and the relative influences of the feedback and feedforward processes on force control. A smaller visualized error size favors voluntary force control using a feedforward process, in relation to a selective central modulation that enhance the coherent discharge of (HP) MUs.Entities:
Keywords: electroencephalography; error; feedback; feedforward; force control; motor unit
Year: 2017 PMID: 28348530 PMCID: PMC5346555 DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2017.00140
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Physiol ISSN: 1664-042X Impact factor: 4.566
Figure 1Scaling factor alters the size of execution error during force-tracking with on-line visual feedback. VE, visualized error; RF, real force; RE, real error.
Figure 2Experimental protocol and the target signal of the force task.
Figure 3Typical recording of physiological data. Only force data, discharge variables, and EEG of the contralateral motor cortex in the time window of interest were presumably stable. The multi-channel surface EMG were decomposed to a number of motor unit spike trains with a state-of-the-art computational principle.
Figure 4Representative trials and pooled power spectra of force data of the times of interest from a typical participant for the low scaling factor (LSF), normal scaling factor (NSF), and high scaling factor (HSF) conditions. The mean frequency of each pooled spectrum of force output is labeled. (FRMS: root mean square value of force output, FSampEn: Sample entropy of force output, PF0.5Hz: normalized amplitude of peak frequency at 0.5 Hz).
The contrast of force variables among the low scaling factor (LSF), normal scaling factor (NSF), and high scaling factor (HSF) conditions.
| Task Error (% MVC) | 0.951 ± 0.129 | 0.627 ± 0.047 | 0.671 ± 0.050 | |
| FRMS (% MVC) | 0.991 ± 0.050 | 0.828 ± 0.008 | 0.778 ± 0.0222 | |
| FSampEn | 0.172 ± 0.008 | 0.192 ± 0.007 | 0.197 ± 0.009 | |
| XCFTmax | 0.805 ± 0.019 | 0.726 ± 0.036 | 0.660 ± 0.041 | |
| Lag Time (S) | −0.171 ± 0.008 | −0.049 ± 0.016 | 0.037 ± 0.031 | |
| Mean Frequency (Hz) | 0.585 ± 0.009 | 0.635 ± 0.017 | 0.671 ± 0.020 | |
| PF0.5Hz | 0.158 ± 0.006 | 0.140 ± 0.010 | 0.124 ± 0.009 |
LSF > NSF, HSF, p ≤ 0.011.
LSF > HSF, p = 0.002.
LSF < NSF, HSF, p ≤ 0.002.
LSF > HSF, NSF > HSF, p ≤ 0.008.
LSF < NSF, HSF, p ≤ 0.003.
LSF < NSF < HSF, p ≤ 0.003.
LSF > HSF, p ≤ 0.001.
Bold values highlights the statistic results with significant difference.
The contrast of decomposition variables among the low scaling factor (LSF), normal scaling factor (NSF), and high scaling factor (HSF) conditions.
| Number of MU | 31.2 ± 1.3 | 32.0 ± 1.9 | 32.3 ± 1.5 | |
| Decomposition Accuracy (%) | 95.3 ± 0.3 | 95.4 ± 0.3 | 95.4 ± 0.4 |
Figure 5Frequency distributions of peak cross-correlations of the motor unit discharges and target signals of a typical subject in the LSF, NSF, and HSF conditions (left plots). Means and standard errors of peak cross-correlations between the detrended discharge traces and target signals (XCDTmax) of all motor units for the different feedback conditions (right plot). (LSF, low scaling factor; NSF, normal scaling factor; HSF, high scaling factor).
Figure 6Schematic illustration of identification of high phasic (HP) and low phasic (LP) motor units. The discharge pattern of a high phasic motor unit exhibits a greater peak value of cross-correlation with the target signal, in contrast to a low phasic motor unit, which shows a lower correlation peak with the target signal.
The mean and standard errors of the mean inter-spike intervals (ISIs) of all, the high phasic (HP), and the low phasic (LP) motor units (MUs) for the different feedback conditions.
| All MU | 55.6 ± 2.0 | 57.0 ± 2.0 | 57.0 ± 2.1 | |
| HP MU | 63.4 ± 3.3 | 59.7 ± 3.4 | 58.8 ± 3.1 | |
| LP MU | 54.1 ± 1.9 | 55.0 ± 2.0 | 54.4 ± 2.3 |
LSF, low scaling factor; NSF, normal scaling factor; HSF, high scaling factor
LSF > HSF, p = 0.013.
Bold values highlights the statistic results with significant difference.
Figure 7(A) Analysis of phase synchronization between a single high phasic (HP) motor unit (SMU) with oscillatory EEG activity of the C3 electrode (EEG C3). The left column is an example of an EEG and a single high phasic and low phasic motor unit recording. To quantify the cortical entrainment of the spike timing for the SMU, the Rayleigh z-statistic was calculated for each frequency component of the EEG signal and the timing of motor unit action potentials. The phase-locking profile of the representative HP motor unit is shown in the right column. (B) Summary of high phasic motor unit-EEG C3 phase locking for a typical participant in the normal scaling factor condition. The left plot summarizes the results of analyzing the HP motor unit-EEG C3 phase locking for all five experimental trials from a typical participant. The right plot represents the percentage of the spectral bands [delta (1–3 Hz), theta (4–7 Hz), alpha (8–12 Hz), and beta (13–35 Hz)] wherein the peak Rayleigh's Z of phasic motor units occurred. (C) The contrast of the population means of the percentages of the spectral bands wherein the peak Rayleigh's Z of high phasic motor units occurred and peak Rayleigh's Z among the different feedback conditions. (LSF, low scaling factor, NSF, normal scaling factor, HSF, high scaling factor).
The force-discharge relation of all, the high phasic (HP), and the low phasic (LP) motor units in terms of peak cross-correlation.
| All MU | 0.598 ± 0.032 | 0.541 ± 0.035 | 0.538 ± 0.031 | |
| HP MU | 0.637 ± 0.028 | 0.569 ± 0.036 | 0.555 ± 0.027 | |
| LP MU | 0.534 ± 0.032 | 0.493 ± 0.029 | 0.505 ± 0.023 |
LSF, low scaling factor; NSF, normal scaling factor; HSF, high scaling factor
LSF > HSF, p = 0.012.
Bold values highlights the statistic results with significant difference.