Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 152, Issue 1, pp 17–28

Elbow impedance during goal-directed movements

Research Article


The mechanical properties and reflex actions of muscles crossing the elbow joint were examined during a 60-deg voluntary elbow extension movement. Brief unexpected torque pulses of identical magnitude and time-course (20-Nm extension switching to 20-Nm flexion within 30 ms) were introduced at various points of a movement in randomly selected trials. Single pulses were injected in different trials, some before movement onset and some either during early, mid, late or ending stages of the movement. Changes in movement trajectory induced by a torque pulse were determined over the first 50 ms by a nearest-neighbor prediction algorithm, and then a modified K-B-I (stiffness-damping-inertia) model was fit to the responses. The stiffness and damping coefficients estimated during voluntary movements were compared to values recorded during trials in which subjects were instructed to strongly co-contract while maintaining a static posture. This latter protocol was designed to help determine the maximum impedance a subject could generate. We determined that co-contraction increased joint stiffness greatly, well beyond that recorded under control conditions. In contrast, the stiffness magnitudes were quite small during routine voluntary movements, or when the subjects relaxed their limb. Furthermore, the damping coefficients were always significant and increased measurably at the end of movement. Reflex activity, as measured by EMG responses in biceps and triceps brachii, showed highly variable responses at latencies of 160 ms or greater. These reflexes tended to activate both elbow flexors and extensors simultaneously. These findings suggest that very low intrinsic muscle stiffness values recorded during point-to-point motion render an equilibrium point or impedance control approach implausible as a means to regulate movement trajectories. In particular, muscle that is shortening against inertial loads seems to exhibit much smaller stiffness than similarly active isometric muscle, although some degree of damping is always present and does not simply co-vary with stiffness. Although the limb muscles can be co-contracted statically or during movement with an observable increase in stiffness and even task performance, this control strategy is rarely utilized, presumably due to the greater energetic cost.


Elbow Impedance Stiffness Ballistic 


  1. Allum JHJ, Young LR (1976) The relaxed oscillation technique for the determination of the moment of inertia of limb segments. J Biomech 9:21-26PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Astrayan DG, Feldman AG (1965) Functional tuning of nervous system with control of movement or maintenance of a steady posture. Biofizika 10:837-846PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bagni MA, Cecchi G, Cecchini E, Colombini B, Colomo F (1998) Force responses to fast ramp stretches in stimulated frog skeletal muscle fibres. J Muscle Res Cell Mot 19:33-42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bennett DJ (1993) Torques generated at the human elbow joint in response to constant position errors imposed during voluntary movements. Exp Brain Res 95:488-98PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bennett DJ (1994) Stretch reflex responses in the human elbow joint during a voluntary movement. J Physiol 474:339-51PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bennett DJ, Hollerbach JM, Xu Y, Hunter IW (1992) Time-varying stiffness of human elbow joint during cyclic voluntary movement. Exp Brain Res 88:433-42PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Bennett DJ, Gorassini M, Prochazka A (1993) Catching a ball: contributions of intrinsic muscle stiffness, reflexes and higher order responses. Can J Physiol Pharm 72:525-534Google Scholar
  8. Bizzi E, Dev P, Morasso P, Polit A (1978) Effect of load disturbances during centrally initiated movements. J Neurophys 41:542-556Google Scholar
  9. Burdet E, Osu R, Franklin D, Yoshioka T, Milner TE, Kawato M (2000) A method for measuring endpoint stiffness during multi-joint arm movements. J Biomech 33:1705-9CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Button C, Davids K, Bennett S, Taylor M (2000) Mechanical perturbation of the wrist during one-handed catching. Acta Psychol (Amsterdam) 5(1): 9-30Google Scholar
  11. Cannon SC, Zahalak GI (1982) The mechanical behavior of active human skeletal muscle in small oscillations. J Biomech 15:111-21PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Cecchi G, Griffiths PJ, Taylor S (1986) Stiffness and force in activated frog skeletal muscle fibers. Biophys J 49:437-51PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Clarys JP, Marfell-Jones MJ (1986) Anthropomorphic prediction of component tissue masses in the minor limb segments of the human body. Human Biol 58:761-769Google Scholar
  14. Cooke JD (1980) The role of stretch reflexes during active movements. Brain Res 181:493-497CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Desmedt JE, Godaux E (1978) Ballistic skilled movements: load compensation and patterning of the motor commands. In: Desmedt JE (ed) Cerebral Control of Man: Load Compensation and Patterning of the Motor Commands. Karger, Basel, pp 21-55Google Scholar
  16. Dufresne JR, Gurfinkel VS, Soechting, JF, Terzuolo CA (1978) Response to transient disturbances during intentional forearm flexion in man. Brain Res 150:103-115CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Ettema GJ, Huijing PA (1994) Skeletal muscle stiffness in static and dynamic contractions. J Biomech 27:1361-8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Gomi H, Kawato M (1997) Human arm stiffness and equilibrium-point trajectory during multi-joint movement. Biol Cyber 76:163-71PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Gottlieb GL, Agarwal GC (1972) The role of the myotatic reflex in the voluntary control of movements. Brain Res 40:139-43CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Hill AV (1922) The maximum work and mechanical efficiency of human muscles, and their most economical speed. J Physiol 56:19-41Google Scholar
  21. Hogan N (1985) Impedance control: an approach to manipulation. J Dyn Sys Meas Control 107:1-24Google Scholar
  22. Houk JC, Rymer Z, Crago PE (1981) Dependence of dynamic response of spindle receptors on muscle length and velocity. J Neurophys 46:143-165PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Huxley AF, Simmons RM (1972) Mechanical transients and the origin of muscular force. Cold Springs Harbor Symposium on Quantitative Biology 37:669-680Google Scholar
  24. Kawato M (2000) Neural Control of Movement 2000 Satellite Meeting on Computational Models, Key West, FLGoogle Scholar
  25. Kearney R, Stein R, Parameswaran L (1997) Identification of intrinsic and reflex contributions to human ankle stiffness dynamics. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 44:493-504PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Lin DC, Rymer WZ (1993) Mechanical properties of cat soleus muscle elicited by sequential ramp stretches: implications for control of muscle. J Neurophys 70:997-1008PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Lin DC, Rymer WZ (1998) Damping in reflexively active and areflexive lengthening muscle evaluated with inertial loads. J Neurophys 80:3369-72Google Scholar
  28. Milner TE (1993) Dependence of elbow viscoelastic behavior on speed and loading in voluntary movements. Brain Res 93:177-180PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Milner TE, Cloutier C (1998) Damping of the wrist joint during voluntary movement. Exp Brain Res 122:309-17PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Nichols TR, Houk JC (1976) Improvement in linearity and regulation of stiffness that results from actions of stretch reflex. J Neurophys 39:119-42PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Popescu FC, Rymer WZ (1999) Muscle mechanics and reflexes are not tuned for disturbance rejection. In: Mastorakis N (ed) Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computer Science. World Scientific and Engineering Society Press, New York, pp 229-233Google Scholar
  32. Popescu FC, Rymer WZ (2000) End points of planar reaching movements are disrupted by small force pulses: an evaluation of the hypothesis of equifinality. J Neurophys 84:2670-2679Google Scholar
  33. Rack PMH (1981) Limitations of somatosensory feedback in control of posture and movement. In: Michael Conn P (ed) Handbook of Physiology. American Physiological Society, Bethesda, pp 229-256Google Scholar
  34. Rothwell JC, Traub MM, Day BL, Obeso JA, Thomas PK, Marsden CD (1982a) Manual motor performance in a deafferented man. Brain 105:515-542PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Rothwell JC, Traub MM, Marsden CD (1982b) Automatic and 'voluntary' responses compensating for disturbances of human thumb movements. Brain Res 248:33-41CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Sakamoto Y, Ishiguro M, Kitagawa G, Brooks DG (1989) Akaike information criterion statistics (book review). Technometrics 31:270-1Google Scholar
  37. Sandercock TG, Heckman CJ (1997) Force from cat soleus muscle during imposed locomotor-like movements: experimental data versus Hill-type model predictions. J Neurophys 77:1538-52Google Scholar
  38. Xu Y, JM Hollerbach (1999) A robust ensemble data method for identification of human joint properties during movement. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 46(4):409-419CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Zahalak GI (1981) A distribution moment approximation for kinetic theories of muscular contraction. Math Biosci 55:89-114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zahalak GI (1986) A comparison of the mechanical behavior of the cat soleus muscle with a distribution-moment model. J Biomech Eng 108:131-140PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Zahalak GI (1990) Modeling muscle mechanics (and energetics) In: Winters JM, Woo SYL (eds) Multiple Muscle Systems. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 1-23Google Scholar
  42. Zatsiorsky V, Seluyanov V (1985) Estimation of the mass and inertial characteristics of the human body by means of the best predictive equations In: Winter DA, Norman RW, Wells RP, Hayes KC, Patla AE (eds) Biomechanics IX-B. Human Kinetics, Champaign, IL, pp 233-239Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Florin Popescu
    • 1
    • 2
  • Joseph M. Hidler
    • 3
  • W. Zev Rymer
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Laboratorio di Tecnologia MedicaIstituti Ortopedici RizzoliBolognaItaly
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical EngineeringNorthwestern UniversityEvanstonUSA
  3. 3.Department of Biomedical EngineeringNorthwestern UniversityEvanstonUSA
  4. 4.Department of Physical Medicine and RehabilitationNorthwestern University Medical SchoolChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations