Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 99, Issue 1, pp 112–130 | Cite as

Accuracy of planar reaching movements

II. Systematic extent errors resulting from inertial anisotropy
  • James Gordon
  • Maria Felice Ghilardi
  • Scott E. Cooper
  • Claude Ghez
Original Paper

Abstract

This study examines the source of directiondependent errors in movement extent made by human subjects in a reaching task. As in the preceding study, subjects were to move a cursor on a digitizing tablet to targets displayed on a computer monitor. Movements were made without concurrent visual feedback of cursor position, but movement paths were displayed on the monitor after the completion of each movement. We first examined horizontal hand movements made at waist level with the upper arm in a vertical orientation. Targets were located at five distances and two directions (30° and 150°) from one of two initial positions. Trajectory shapes were stereotyped, and movements to more distant targets had larger accelerations and velocities. Comparison of movements in the two directions showed that in the 30° direction responses were hypermetric, accelerations and velocities were larger, and movement times were shorter. Since movements in the 30° direction required less motion of the upper arm than movements in the 150° direction, we hypothesized that the differences in accuracy and acceleration reflected a failure to take into account the difference in total limb inertia in the two directions. To test this hypothesis we simulated the initial accelerations of a two-segment limb moving in the horizontal plane with the hand at shoulder level when a constant force was applied at the hand in each of 24 directions. We compared these simulated accelerations to ones produced by our subjects with their arms in the same position when they aimed movements to targets in the 24 directions and at equal distances from an initial position. The magnitudes of both simulated and actual accelerations were greatest in the two directions perpendicular to the forearm, where inertial resistance is least, and lowest for movements directed along the axis of the forearm. In all subjects, the directional variation in peak acceleration was similar to that predicted by the model and shifted in the same way when the initial position of the hand was displaced. The pattern of direction-dependent variations in initial acceleration did not depend on the speed of movement. It was also unchanged when subjects aimed their movements toward targets presented within the workspace on the tablet instead of on the computer monitor. These findings indicate that, in programming the magnitude of the initial force that will accelerate the hand, subjects do not fully compensate for direction-dependent differences in inertial resistance. The direction-dependent differences in peak acceleration were associated with systematic variations in movement extent in all subjects, but the variations in extent were proportionately smaller than those in acceleration. This compensation for inertial anisotropy, which differed in degree among subjects, was associated with changes in movement duration. The possible contributions of elastic properties of the musculoskeletal system and proprioceptive feed-back to the compensatory variations in movement time are discussed. The finding that the magnitude of the initial force that accelerates the hand is planned without regard to movement direction adds support for the hypothesis that extent and direction of an intended movement are planned independently. Furthermore, the lack of compensation for inertia in the acceleration of the simple reaching movements studied here suggests that they are planned by the central nervous system without explicit inverse kinematic and dynamic computations.

Key words

Multijoint arm movements Reaching Accuracy Coordinate transformations Human 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Atkeson CG, Hollerbach JM (1985) Kinematic features of unrestrained vertical arm movements. J Neurosci 5:2318–2330PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bizzi E, Accornero N, Chappie W, Hogan N (1984) Posture control and trajectory formation during arm movement. J Neurosci 4:2738–2744Google Scholar
  3. Brady M, Hollerbach JM, Johnson TL, Lozano-Pérez T, Mason M (1982) Robot motion: planning and control. MIT, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  4. Burnod Y, Grandguillaume P, Otto I, Ferraina S, Johnson PB, Caminiti R (1992) Visuomotor transformations underlying arm movements toward visual targets: a neural network model of cerebral cortical operations. J Neurosci 12:1435–1453Google Scholar
  5. Cleveland WS (1979) Robust locally weighted regression and smoothing scatterplots. J Am Stat Assoc 74:829–836Google Scholar
  6. Favilla M, Hening W, Ghez C (1989) Trajectory control in targeted force impulses. VI. Independent specification of response amplitude and direction. Exp Brain Res 75:280–294Google Scholar
  7. Favilla M, Gordon J, Hening W, Ghez C (1990) Trajectory control in targeted force impulses. VII. Independent setting of amplitude and direction in response preparation. Exp Brain Res 79:530–538Google Scholar
  8. Feldman AG (1986) Once more on the equilibrium-point hypothesis (X model) for motor control. J Mot Behav 18:17–54Google Scholar
  9. Flanders M, Helms Tillery SI, Soechting JF (1992) Early stages in a sensorimotor transformation. Behav Brain Sci 15:309–362Google Scholar
  10. Flash T (1987) The control of hand equilibrium trajectories in multi-joint arm movements. Biol Cybern 57:257–274Google Scholar
  11. Flash T, Mussa-Ivaldi F (1990) Human arm stiffness characteristics during the maintenance of posture. Exp Brain Res 82:315–326Google Scholar
  12. Georgopoulos AP (1991) Higher order motor control. Annu Rev Neurosci 14:361–378Google Scholar
  13. Georgopoulos AP, Ashe J, Smyrnis N, Taira M (1992) The motor cortex and the coding offeree. Science 256:1692–1695Google Scholar
  14. Ghez C (1979) Contributions of central programs to rapid limb movements in the cat. In: Asanuma H, Wilson VJ (eds) Integration in the nervous system. Igaku-Shoin, Tokyo, pp 305–320Google Scholar
  15. Ghez C, Vicario DS (1978) The control of rapid limb movement in the cat. II. Scaling of isometric force adjustments. Exp Brain Res 33:191–202Google Scholar
  16. Ghez C, Gordon J, Ghilardi MF, Christakos CN, Cooper SE (1990a) Roles of proprioceptive input in the programming of arm trajectories. Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol 55:837–847Google Scholar
  17. Ghez C, Hening W, Favilla M (1990b) Parallel interacting channels in the initiation and specification of motor response features. In: Jeannerod M (eds) Motor representation and control. (Attention and performance, vol XIII) Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 265–293Google Scholar
  18. Ghilardi MF, Gordon J, Ghez C (1991) Systematic directional errors in planar arm movements are reduced by vision of the arm. Soc Neurosci Abstr 17:1388Google Scholar
  19. Ghilardi MF, Gordon J, Ghez C (1993) Directional biases in targeted arm movements result from distortions in the representation of the workspace. Soc Neurosci Abstr 19:1686Google Scholar
  20. Gordon J, Ghez C (1987) Trajectory control in targeted force impulses. II. Pulse height control. Exp Brain Res 67:241–252PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Gordon J, Ghez C (1989) Independence of direction and amplitude errors in planar arm movements. Soc Neurosci Abstr 15:50Google Scholar
  22. Gordon J, Ghez C (1991) Muscle receptors and spinal reflexes: the stretch reflex. In: Kandel ER, Schwartz JH, Jessell TM (eds) Principles of neural science Elsevier, New York, pp 564–580Google Scholar
  23. Gordon J, Ghilardi MF, Ghez C (1990) Deafferented subjects fail to compensate for workspace anisotropies in 2-dimensional arm movements. Soc Neurosci Abstr 16:1089Google Scholar
  24. Gordon J, Ghilardi MF, Ghez C (1992a) In reaching, the task is to move the hand to a target. Behav Brain Sci 15:337–339Google Scholar
  25. Gordon J, Ghilardi MF, Ghez C (1992b) Parallel processing of direction and extent in reaching movements. Eng Med Biol 11:92–93Google Scholar
  26. Gordon J, Ghilardi MF, Ghez C (1994) Accuracy of planar reaching movements. I. Independence of direction and extent variability. Exp Brain Res 99:97–111PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Hasan Z (1991) Biomechanics and the study of multijoint movements. In: Humphrey DR, Freund H-J (eds) Motor control: concepts and issues. Wiley, Chichester, pp 75–84Google Scholar
  28. Hening W, Vicario D, Ghez C (1988) Trajectory control in targeted force impulses. IV. Influences of choice, prior experience and urgency. Exp Brain Res 71:103–115Google Scholar
  29. Hogan N (1985) The mechanics of multi-joint posture and movement control. Biol Cybern 52:315–331PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Hogan N (1988) Planning and execution of multijoint movements. Can J Physiol Pharmacol 66:508–517Google Scholar
  31. Hollerbach JM (1982) Computers, brains and the control of movement. Trends Neurosci 5:189–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hollerbach JM, Flash T (1982) Dynamic interactions between limb segments during planar arm movement. Biol Cybern 44:67–77PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Houk JC, Rymer WZ (1981) Neural control of muscle length and tension. In: Brooks VB (eds) Motor control. (Handbook of physiology, sect 1, The nervous system, vol 2, part 1) American Physiological Society, Bethesda, MD, pp 257–323Google Scholar
  34. Kalaska JF, Cohen DAD, Hyde ML, Prud'homme M (1989) A comparison of movement direction-related versus load direction-related activity in primate motor cortex, using a two-dimensional reaching task. J Neurosci 9:2080–2102Google Scholar
  35. Karst GM (1991) Characteristics of hand path curvature for planar multi-joint arm movements. Soc Neurosci Abstr 17:1387Google Scholar
  36. Karst GM, Hasan Z (1991a) Initiation rules for planar, two-joint arm movements: agonist selection for movements throughout the work space. J Neurophysiol 66:1579–1593Google Scholar
  37. Karst GM, Hasan Z (1991b) Timing and magnitude of electromyographic activity for two-joint arm movements in different directions. J Neurophysiol 66:1594–1604Google Scholar
  38. Merton PA (1953) Speculations on the servo-control of movement. In: Wolstenholme GEW (eds) The spinal cord. Churchill Livingstone, London, pp 247–255Google Scholar
  39. Mussa-Ivaldi FA, Hogan N, Bizzi E (1985) Neural, mechanical, and geometric factors subserving arm posture in humans. J Neurosci 5:2732–2743PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Poulton EC (1981) Human manual control. In: Brooks VB (eds) Motor Control. (Handbook of physiology, sect 1, The nervous system, vol 2, part 2) American Physiological Society, Bethesda, MD, pp 1337–1389Google Scholar
  41. Sainburg RL, Ghilardi MF, Ferracci F, Poizner H, Ghez C (1992) Role of proprioceptive input in the control of interaction torques during multijoint movements. Soc Neurosci Abstr 18:1550Google Scholar
  42. Sainburg RL, Ghilardi MF, Poizner H, Ghez C (1993) Vision of the limb allows deafferented patients to control multi-joint dynamics. Soc Neurosci Abstr 1686Google Scholar
  43. Saltzman E (1979) Levels of sensorimotor representation. J Math Psychol 20:91–163Google Scholar
  44. Shadmehr R, Mussa-Ivaldi FA, Bizzi E (1993) Postural force fields of the human arm and their role in generating multi-joint movements. J Neurosci 13:45–62Google Scholar
  45. Smith JL, Zernicke RF (1987) Predictions for neural control based on limb dynamics. Trends Neurosci 10:123–128Google Scholar
  46. Soechting JF (1989) Elements of coordinated arm movements in three-dimensional space. In: Wallace SA (eds) Perspectives on the coordination of movement. North-Holland, New York, pp 47–83Google Scholar
  47. Vallbo ÅB (1970) Discharge patterns in human muscle spindle afferents during isometric voluntary contractions. Acta Physiol Scand 80:552–566Google Scholar
  48. Winter DA (1990) Biomechanics and motor control of human movement. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  49. Worringham CJ (1992) Some historical roots of phenomena and methods in motor behavior research. In: Stelmach GE, Requin J (eds) Tutorials in motor behavior II. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 807–825Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • James Gordon
    • 1
  • Maria Felice Ghilardi
    • 2
  • Scott E. Cooper
    • 2
  • Claude Ghez
    • 2
  1. 1.Program in Physical Therapy, Columbia University, College of Physicians and SurgeonsNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Center for Neurobiology and Behavior, N.Y.S. Psychiatric Institute, Columbia University, College of Physicians and SurgeonsNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations