Advertisement

Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 151, Issue 2, pp 145–157 | Cite as

Functional significance of stiffness in adaptation of multijoint arm movements to stable and unstable dynamics

  • David W. FranklinEmail author
  • Etienne Burdet
  • Rieko Osu
  • Mitsuo Kawato
  • Theodore E. Milner
Research Article

Abstract

This study compared the mechanisms of adaptation to stable and unstable dynamics from the perspective of changes in joint mechanics. Subjects were instructed to make point to point movements in force fields generated by a robotic manipulandum which interacted with the arm in either a stable or an unstable manner. After subjects adjusted to the initial disturbing effects of the force fields they were able to produce normal straight movements to the target. In the case of the stable interaction, subjects modified the joint torques in order to appropriately compensate for the force field. No change in joint torque or endpoint force was required or observed in the case of the unstable interaction. After adaptation, the endpoint stiffness of the arm was measured by applying displacements to the hand in eight different directions midway through the movements. This was compared to the stiffness measured similarly during movements in a null force field. After adaptation, the endpoint stiffness under both the stable and unstable dynamics was modified relative to the null field. Adaptation to unstable dynamics was achieved by selective modification of endpoint stiffness in the direction of the instability. To investigate whether the change in endpoint stiffness could be accounted for by change in joint torque or endpoint force, we estimated the change in stiffness on each trial based on the change in joint torque relative to the null field. For stable dynamics the change in endpoint stiffness was accurately predicted. However, for unstable dynamics the change in endpoint stiffness could not be reproduced. In fact, the predicted endpoint stiffness was similar to that in the null force field. Thus, the change in endpoint stiffness seen after adaptation to stable dynamics was directly related to changes in net joint torque necessary to compensate for the dynamics in contrast to adaptation to unstable dynamics, where a selective change in endpoint stiffness occurred without any modification of net joint torque.

Keywords

Stability Motor learning Impedance control Endpoint stiffness Inverse dynamics model 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The experiments were performed at ATR. We thank T. Yoshioka for his technical assistance. The manipulandum was setup by T. Yoshioka and H. Gomi. This research was supported by the Telecommunications Advancement Organization of Japan, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the Swiss National Science Foundation, and the Human Frontier Science Program

References

  1. Akazawa K, Milner TE, Stein RB (1983) Modulation of reflex EMG and stiffness in response to stretch of human finger muscle. J Neurophysiol 49:16–27PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bennett DJ (1993) Torques generated at the human elbow joint in response to constant position errors imposed during voluntary movements. Exp Brain Res 95:488–498PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Buchanan TS, Almdale DPJ, Lewis JL, Rymer WZ (1986) Characteristics of synergic relations during isometric contractions of human elbow muscles. J Neurophysiol 56:1225–1241PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Burdet E, Osu R, Franklin DW, Yoshioka T, Milner TE, Kawato M (2000) A method for measuring endpoint stiffness during multi-joint arm movements. J Biomech 33:1705–1709CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Burdet E, Osu R, Franklin DW, Milner TE, Kawato M (2001) The central nervous system stabilizes unstable dynamics by learning optimal impedance. Nature 414:446–449CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Cannon SC, Zahalak GI (1982) The mechanical behavior of active human skeletal muscle in small oscillations. J Biomech 15:111–121PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Capaday C, Forget R, Milner T (1994) A re-examination of the effects of instruction on the long-latency stretch reflex response of the flexor pollicis longus muscle. Exp Brain Res 100:515–521PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Carter RR, Crago PE, Keith MW (1990) Stiffness regulation by reflex action in the normal human hand. J Neurophysiol 64:105–118PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Carter RR, Crago PE, Gorman PH (1993) Nonlinear stretch reflex interaction during cocontraction. J Neurophysiol 69:943–952PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Conditt MA, Gandolfo F, Mussa-Ivaldi FA (1997) The motor system does not learn the dynamics of the arm by rote memorization of past experience. J Neurophysiol 78:554–560PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Dufresne JR, Soechting JF, Terzuolo CA (1978) Electromyographic response to pseudo-random torque disturbances of human forearm position. Neuroscience 3:1213–1226CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Flanagan JR, Wing AM (1997) The role of internal models in motion planning and control: evidence from grip force adjustments during movements of hand-held loads. J Neurosci 17:1519–1528PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Flanagan JR, King S, Wolpert DM, Johansson RS (2001) Sensorimotor prediction and memory in object manipulation. Can J Exp Psychol 55:87–95PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Flanders M, Soechting JF (1990) Arm muscle activation for static forces in three-dimensional space. J Neurophysiol 64:1818–1837PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Gomi H, Kawato M (1996) Equilibrium-point control hypothesis examined by measured arm stiffness during multijoint movement. Science 272:117–120PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Gomi H, Kawato M (1997) Human arm stiffness and equilibrium-point trajectory during multi-joint movement. Biol Cybern 76:163–171PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Gomi H, Osu R (1998) Task-dependent viscoelasticity of human multijoint arm and its spatial characteristics for interaction with environments. J Neurosci 18:8965–8978PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Gottlieb GL, Agarwal GC (1988) Compliance of single joints: elastic and plastic characteristics. J Neurophysiol 59:937–951Google Scholar
  19. Gribble PL, Ostry DJ (1998) Independent coactivation of shoulder and elbow muscles. Exp Brain Res 123:355–360PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Groeningen CJ van, Erkelens CJ (1994) Task-dependent differences between mono- and bi-articular heads of the triceps brachii muscle. Exp Brain Res 100:345–352PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Hogan N (1985) The mechanics of multi-joint posture and movement control. Biol Cybern 52:315–331PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Hollerbach MJ, Flash T (1982) Dynamic interactions between limb segments during planar arm movement. Biol Cybern 44:67–77PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Hunter IW, Kearney RE (1982) Dynamics of human ankle stiffness: variation with mean ankle torque. J Biomech 15:747–752PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Karst GM, Hasan Z (1991) Timing and magnitude of electromyographic activity for two-joint arm movements in different directions. J Neurophysiol 66:1594–1604PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Kirsch RF, Boskov D, Rymer WZ (1994) Muscle stiffness during transient and continuous movements of cat muscle: perturbation characteristics and physiological relevance. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 41:758–770PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Krakauer JW, Ghilardi MF, Ghez C (1999) Independent learning of internal models for kinematic and dynamic control of reaching. Nat Neurosci 2:1026–1031PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Lacquaniti F, Carrozzo M, Borghese NA (1993) Time-varying mechanical behavior of multijointed arm in man. J Neurophysiol 69:1443–1464PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Marsden CD, Merton PA, Morton HB (1976) Stretch reflex and servo action in a variety of human muscles. J Physiol 259:531–560PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Matthews PB (1986) Observations on the automatic compensation of reflex gain on varying the pre-existing level of motor discharge in man. J Physiol 374:73–90PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. McIntyre J, Mussa-Ivaldi FA, Bizzi E (1996) The control of stable postures in the multijoint arm. Exp Brain Res 110:248–264PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Milner TE, Cloutier C, Leger AB, Franklin DW (1995) Inability to activate muscles maximally during cocontraction and the effect on joint stiffness. Exp Brain Res 107:293–305PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Mussa-Ivaldi FA, Hogan N, Bizzi E (1985) Neural, mechanical, and geometric factors subserving arm posture in humans. J Neurosci 5:2732–2743PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Osu R, Gomi H (1999) Multijoint muscle regulation mechanisms examined by measured human arm stiffness and EMG signals. J Neurophysiol 81:1458–1468PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Perreault EJ, Kirsch RF, Crago PE (2001) Effects of voluntary force generation on the elastic components of endpoint stiffness. Exp Brain Res 141:312–323PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Rancourt D, Hogan N (2001) Stability in force-production tasks. J Mot Behav 33:193–204PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Schmidt RA, Zelaznik H, Hawkins B, Frank JS, Quinn JT Jr (1979) Motor-output variability: a theory for the accuracy of rapid motor acts. Psychol Rev 47:415–451PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Shadmehr R, Mussa-Ivaldi FA (1994) Adaptive representation of dynamics during learning of a motor task. J Neurosci 14:3208–3224PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Slifkin AB, Newell KM (1999) Noise, information transmission, and force variability. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 25:837–851PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Smeets JB, Erkelens CJ (1991) Dependence of autogenic and heterogenic stretch reflexes on pre-load activity in the human arm. J Physiol 440:455–465PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Stein RB, Hunter IW, Lafontaine SR, Jones LA (1995) Analysis of short-latency reflexes in human elbow flexor muscles. J Neurophysiol 73:1900–1911PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Tax AA, Denier van der Gon JJ, Gielen CC, Tempel CM van den (1989) Differences in the activation of m. biceps brachii in the control of slow isotonic movements and isometric contractions. Exp Brain Res 76:55–63PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Tax AA, Denier van der Gon JJ, Erkelens CJ (1990a) Differences in coordination of elbow flexor muscles in force tasks and in movement tasks. Exp Brain Res 81:567–572PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Tax AA, Denier van der Gon JJ, Gielen CC, Kleyne M (1990b) Differences in central control of m. biceps brachii in movement tasks and force tasks. Exp Brain Res 79:138–142PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Thoroughman KA, Shadmehr R (1999) Electromyographic correlates of learning an internal model of reaching movements. J Neurosci 19:8573–8588Google Scholar
  45. Wadman WJ, Denier van der Gon JJ, Derksen RJA (1980) Muscle activation patterns for fast goal-directed arm movements. J Hum Mov Stud 6:19–37Google Scholar
  46. Wang T, Dordevic GS, Shadmehr R (2001) Learning the dynamics of reaching movements results in the modification of arm impedance and long-latency perturbation responses. Biol Cybern 85:437–448CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Weiss PL, Hunter IW, Kearney RE (1988) Human ankle joint stiffness over the full range of muscle activation levels. J Biomech 21:539–544PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Winter DA (1990) Biomechanics and motor control of human movement. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • David W. Franklin
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Etienne Burdet
    • 3
  • Rieko Osu
    • 1
  • Mitsuo Kawato
    • 1
  • Theodore E. Milner
    • 2
  1. 1.ATR Computational Neuroscience LaboratoriesKyotoJapan
  2. 2.School of KinesiologySimon Fraser UniversityBurnabyCanada
  3. 3.Department of Mechanical Engineering and Division of BioengineeringNational University of Singapore119260 Singapore

Personalised recommendations