Literature DB >> 32494367

CONTROLLING PHYSICAL INTERACTIONS: HUMANS DO NOT MINIMIZE MUSCLE EFFORT.

Ryan Koeppen1, Dagmar Sternad2, Meghan E Huber1, Neville Hogan3.   

Abstract

Physical interaction with tools is ubiquitous in functional activities of daily living. While tool use is considered a hallmark of human behavior, how humans control such physical interactions is still poorly understood. When humans perform a motor task, it is commonly suggested that the central nervous system coordinates the musculo-skeletal system to minimize muscle effort. In this paper, we tested if this notion holds true for motor tasks that involve physical interaction. Specifically, we investigated whether humans minimize muscle forces to control physical interaction with a circular kinematic constraint. Using a simplified arm model, we derived three predictions for how humans should behave if they were minimizing muscular effort to perform the task. First, we predicted that subjects would exert workless, radial forces on the constraint. Second, we predicted that the muscles would be deactivated when they could not contribute to work. Third, we predicted that when moving very slowly along the constraint, the pattern of muscle activity would not differ between clockwise (CW) and counterclockwise (CCW) motions. To test these predictions, we instructed human subjects to move a robot handle around a virtual, circular constraint at a constant tangential velocity. To reduce the effect of forces that might arise from incomplete compensation of neuro-musculoskeletal dynamics, the target tangential speed was set to an extremely slow pace (~1 revolution every 13.3 seconds). Ultimately, the results of human experiment did not support the predictions derived from our model of minimizing muscular effort. While subjects did exert workless forces, they did not deactivate muscles as predicted. Furthermore, muscle activation patterns differed between CW and CCW motions about the constraint. These findings demonstrate that minimizing muscle effort is not a significant factor in human performance of this constrained-motion task. Instead, the central nervous system likely prioritizes reducing other costs, such as computational effort, over muscle effort to control physical interactions.

Entities:  

Year:  2017        PMID: 32494367      PMCID: PMC7268731          DOI: 10.1115/DSCC2017-5202

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc ASME Dyn Syst Control Conf        ISSN: 2151-1853


  10 in total

1.  Development of recommendations for SEMG sensors and sensor placement procedures.

Authors:  H J Hermens; B Freriks; C Disselhorst-Klug; G Rau
Journal:  J Electromyogr Kinesiol       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 2.368

2.  Reduction of metabolic cost during motor learning of arm reaching dynamics.

Authors:  Helen J Huang; Rodger Kram; Alaa A Ahmed
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2012-02-08       Impact factor: 6.167

3.  The central nervous system does not minimize energy cost in arm movements.

Authors:  Dinant A Kistemaker; Jeremy D Wong; Paul L Gribble
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2010-09-08       Impact factor: 2.714

4.  The biomechanics of force production.

Authors:  Denis Rancourt; Neville Hogan
Journal:  Adv Exp Med Biol       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 2.622

5.  A statistical method for the measurement of muscle activation intervals from surface myoelectric signal during gait.

Authors:  P Bonato; T D'Alessio; M Knaflitz
Journal:  IEEE Trans Biomed Eng       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 4.538

6.  A comparison of computer-based methods for the determination of onset of muscle contraction using electromyography.

Authors:  P W Hodges; B H Bui
Journal:  Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  1996-12

Review 7.  Dynamic primitives of motor behavior.

Authors:  Neville Hogan; Dagmar Sternad
Journal:  Biol Cybern       Date:  2012-11-03       Impact factor: 2.086

8.  Optimal trajectory formation of constrained human arm reaching movements.

Authors:  Ken Ohta; Mikhail M Svinin; ZhiWei Luo; Shigeyuki Hosoe; Rafael Laboissière
Journal:  Biol Cybern       Date:  2004-08-09       Impact factor: 2.086

9.  Dynamic primitives in the control of locomotion.

Authors:  Neville Hogan; Dagmar Sternad
Journal:  Front Comput Neurosci       Date:  2013-06-21       Impact factor: 2.380

10.  Rhythmic manipulation of objects with complex dynamics: predictability over chaos.

Authors:  Bahman Nasseroleslami; Christopher J Hasson; Dagmar Sternad
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2014-10-23       Impact factor: 4.475

  10 in total
  2 in total

1.  Dynamic Primitives Limit Human Force Regulation during Motion.

Authors:  A Michael West; James Hermus; Meghan E Huber; Pauline Maurice; Dagmar Sternad; Neville Hogan
Journal:  IEEE Robot Autom Lett       Date:  2022-01-11

2.  Preparing to move: Setting initial conditions to simplify interactions with complex objects.

Authors:  Rashida Nayeem; Salah Bazzi; Mohsen Sadeghi; Neville Hogan; Dagmar Sternad
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2021-12-17       Impact factor: 4.475

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.