Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 172, Issue 1, pp 129–138 | Cite as

Impedance is modulated to meet accuracy demands during goal-directed arm movements

  • Luc P. J. Selen
  • Peter J. Beek
  • Jaap H. van Dieën
Research Article

Abstract

The neuromuscular system is inherently noisy and joint impedance may serve to filter this noise. In the present experiment, we investigated whether individuals modulate joint impedance to meet spatial accuracy demands. Twelve subjects were instructed to make rapid, time constrained, elbow extensions to three differently sized targets. Some trials (20 out of 140 for each target, randomly assigned) were perturbed mechanically at 75% of movement amplitude. Inertia, damping and stiffness were estimated from the torque and angle deviation signal using a forward simulation and optimization routine. Increases in endpoint accuracy were not always reflected in a decrease in trajectory variability. Only in the final quarter of the trajectory the variability decreased as target width decreased. Stiffness estimates increased significantly with accuracy constraints. Damping estimates only increased for perturbations that were initially directed against the movement direction. We concluded that joint impedance modulation is one of the strategies used by the neuromuscular system to generate accurate movements, at least during the final part of the movement.

Keywords

Precision Neuromotor noise Stiffness Motor variability 

References

  1. 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
  2. Bennett DJ (1994) Stretch reflex responses in the human elbow joint during a voluntary movement. J Physiol 474:339–351PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bennett DJ, Hollerbach JM, Xu Y, Hunter IW (1992) Time-varying stiffness of human elbow joint during cyclic voluntary movement. Exp Brain Res 88:433–442CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. Christou EA, Grossman M, Carlton LG (2002) Modeling variability of force during isometric contractions of the quadriceps femoris. J Mot Behav 34:67–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Elliott D, Helsen WF, Chua R (2001) A century later: Woodworth’s (1899) two-component model of goal-directed aiming. Psychol Bull 127:342–357CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Fitts PM (1954) The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. J Exp Psychol 47:381–391PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Franklin DW, Osu R, Burdet E, Kawato M, Milner TE (2003) Adaptation to stable and unstable dynamics achieved by combined impedance control and inverse dynamics model. J Neurophysiol 90:3270–3282PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Goffe W, Ferrier G, Rogers J (1994) Global optimization of statistical functions with simulated annealing. J Econom 60:65–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gribble PL, Mullin LI, Cothros N, Mattar A (2003) Role of cocontraction in arm movement accuracy. J Neurophysiol 89:2396–2405PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hajian AZ, Howe RD (1997) Identification of the mechanical impedance at the human finger tip. J Biomech Eng 119:109–114PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Harris CM, Wolpert DM (1998) Signal-dependent noise determines motor planning. Nature 394:780–784CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Jones KE, De AF, Hamilton C, Wolpert DM (2002) Sources of signal-dependent noise during isometric force production. J Neurophysiol 88:1533–1544PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kalveram KT, Schinauer T, Beirle S, Richter S, Jansen-Osmann P (2005) Threading neural feedforward into a mechanical spring: how biology exploits physics in limb control. Biol Cybern 92:229–240CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Kang N, Shinohara M, Zatsiorsky VM, Latash ML (2004) Learning multi-finger synergies: an uncontrolled manifold analysis. Exp Brain Res 157:336–350CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Kearney RE, Stein RB, Parameswaran L (1997) Identification of intrinsic and reflex contributions to human ankle stiffness dynamics. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 44:493–504CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Laursen B, Jensen BR, Sjogaard G (1998) Effect of speed and precision demands on human shoulder muscle electromyography during a repetitive task. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 78:544–548CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Milner TE, Cloutier C (1998) Damping of the wrist joint during voluntary movement. Exp Brain Res 122:309–317CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Müller H, Sternad D (2004) Decomposition of variability in the execution of goal-oriented tasks: three components of skill improvement. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 30:212–233CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Osu R, Franklin DW, Kato H, Gomi H, Domen K, Yoshioka T, Kawato M (2002) Short- and long-term changes in joint co-contraction associated with motor learning as revealed from surface EMG. J Neurophysiol 88:991–1004PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Osu R, Kamimura N, Iwasaki H, Nakano E, Harris CM, Wada Y, Kawato M (2004) Optimal impedance control for task achievement in the presence of signal-dependent noise. J Neurophysiol 92:1199–1215CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Plamondon R, Alimi AM (1997) Speed/accuracy trade-offs in target-directed movements. Behav Brain Sci 20:279–303; Discussion 303–249Google Scholar
  24. Popescu F, Hidler JM, Rymer WZ (2003) Elbow impedance during goal-directed movements. Exp Brain Res 152:17–28CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Sandfeld J, Jensen BR (2005) Effect of computer mouse gain and visual demand on mouse clicking performance and muscle activation in a young and elderly group of experienced computer users. Appl Ergon 36:547–555CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 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 47:415–451PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Scholz JP, Schöner G (1999) The uncontrolled manifold concept: identifying control variables for a functional task. Exp Brain Res 126:289–306CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Selen LPJ, Beek PJ, Van Dieën JH (2005) Can co-activation reduce kinematic variability? A simulation study. Biol Cybern 93:373–381PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Shiller DM, Laboissiere R, Ostry DJ (2002) Relationship between jaw stiffness and kinematic variability in speech. J Neurophysiol 88:2329–2340PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Todorov E, Jordan MI (2002) Optimal feedback control as a theory of motor coordination. Nat Neurosci 5:1226–1235CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Van der Helm FC, Schouten AC, De Vlugt E, Brouwn GG (2002) Identification of intrinsic and reflexive components of human arm dynamics during postural control. J Neurosci Methods 119:1–14CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Van Galen GP, de Jong WP (1995) Fitts’ law as the outcome of a dynamic noise filtering model of motor control. Hum Mov Sci 12:539–571Google Scholar
  33. Van Galen GP, Van Huygevoort M (2000) Error, stress and the role of neuromotor noise in space oriented behaviour. Biol Psychol 51:151–171CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Van Gemmert AW, Van Galen GP (1997) Stress, neuromotor noise, and human performance: a theoretical perspective. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 23:1299–1313CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Van Roon D, Steenbergen B, Meulenbroek RG (2005) Trunk use and co-contraction in cerebral palsy as regulatory mechanisms for accuracy control. Neuropsychologia 43:497–508CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Visser B, De Looze M, De Graaff M, Van Dieën JH (2004) Effects of precision demands and mental pressure on muscle activation and hand forces in computer mouse tasks. Ergonomics 47:202–217CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Woodworth D (1899) The accuracy of voluntary movement. Psychol Rev 3:1–119Google Scholar
  38. Yang JF, Scholz JP (2005) Learning a throwing task is associated with differential changes in the use of motor abundance. Exp Brain Res 163:137–158CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Zhang LQ, Rymer WZ (1997) Simultaneous and nonlinear identification of mechanical and reflex properties of human elbow joint muscles. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 44:1192–1209CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Zhang LQ, Rymer WZ (2001) Reflex and intrinsic changes induced by fatigue of human elbow extensor muscles. J Neurophysiol 86:1086–1094PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luc P. J. Selen
    • 1
  • Peter J. Beek
    • 1
  • Jaap H. van Dieën
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Human Movement SciencesInstitute for Fundamental and Clinical Human Movement Sciences, Vrije UniversiteitAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations