Advertisement

Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 176, Issue 2, pp 311–331 | Cite as

The acquisition and implementation of the smoothness maximization motion strategy is dependent on spatial accuracy demands

  • Ronen SosnikEmail author
  • Tamar Flash
  • Bjoern Hauptmann
  • Avi Karni
Research Article

Abstract

We recently showed that extensive training on a sequence of planar hand trajectories passing through several targets resulted in the co-articulation of movement components and in the formation of new movement elements (primitives) (Sosnik et al. in Exp Brain Res 156(4):422–438, 2004). Reduction in movement duration was accompanied by the gradual replacing of a piecewise combination of rectilinear trajectories with a single, longer curved one, the latter affording the maximization of movement smoothness (“global motion planning”). The results from transfer experiments, conducted by the end of the last training session, have suggested that the participants have acquired movement elements whose attributes were solely dictated by the figural (i.e., geometrical) form of the path, rather than by both path geometry and its time derivatives. Here we show that the acquired movement generation strategy (“global motion planning”) was not specific to the trained configuration or total movement duration. Performance gain (i.e., movement smoothness, defined by the fit of the data to the behavior, predicted by the “global planning” model) transferred to non-trained configurations in which the targets were spatially co-aligned or when participants were instructed to perform the task in a definite amount of time. Surprisingly, stringent accuracy demands, in transfer conditions, resulted not only in an increased movement duration but also in reverting to the straight trajectories (loss of co-articulation), implying that the performance gain was dependent on accuracy constraints. Only 28.5% of the participants (two out of seven) who were trained in the absence of visual feedback from the hand (dark condition) co-articulated by the end of the last training session compared to 75% (six out of eight) who were trained in the light, and none of them has acquired a geometrical motion primitive. Furthermore, six naïve participants who trained in dark condition on large size targets have all co-articulated by the end of the last training session, still, none of them has acquired a geometrical motion primitive. Taken together, our results indicate that the acquisition of a geometrical motion primitive is dependent on the existence of visual feedback from the hand and that the implementation of the smoothness-maximization motion strategy is dependent on spatial accuracy demands. These findings imply that the specific features of the training experience (i.e., temporal or spatial task demands) determine the attributes of an acquired motion planning strategy and primitive.

Keywords

Co-articulation Motion primitives Visual feedback Spatial accuracy 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by the Einhorn-Dominic Foundation, by the DIP grant to Prof Tamar Flash and by the Morros laboratory. Prof. Tamar Flash is an incumbent of Dr. Hymie Morros professorial chair.

References

  1. Abend W, Bizzi E, Morasso P (1982) Human arm trajectory formation. Brain 105:331–348PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexander RM (1997) Minimum energy cost hypothesis for human arm trajectories. Biol Cybern 76:97–105PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berthier NE (1996) Learning to reach: a mathematical model. Dev Psych 32:811–823CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bizzi E, Tresch MC, Saltiel P, d’Avella (2000) A New perspectives on spinal motor systems. Nat Rev Neurosci 1:101–108Google Scholar
  5. Blackburn CS, Young S (2000) A self-learning predictive model of articulator movements during speech production. J Acoust Soc Am 107(3):1659–1670PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cruse E (1986) Constraints for joint angle control of the human arm. Biol Cybern 54:125–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Engel KC, Flanders M, Soechting JF (1997) Anticipatory and sequential motor control in piano playing. Exp Brain Res 113:189–199PubMedCrossRefGoogle 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. Flanagan JR, Rao AK (1995) Trajectory adaptation to nonlinear visuomotor transformation: evidence of motion planning in visually perceived space. J Neurosci 74(5):2174–2177Google Scholar
  10. Flash T, Gurevich I (1992) Human motor adaptation to external loads. Ann Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 13:885–886Google Scholar
  11. Flash T, Henis EA (1991) Arm trajectory modification during reaching towards visual targets. J Cog Neurosci 3:220–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Flash T, Hogan N (1985) The coordination of arm movements: an experimentally confirmed mathematical model. J Neurosci 5(7):1688–1703PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Flash T, Henis E, Inzelberg R, Korczyn AD (1992) Timing and sequencing of human arm trajectories: normal and abnormal motor behavior. Hum Mov Sci 11:83–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ghahramani Z, Wolpert DM (1997) Modular decomposition in visuomotor learning. Nature 386:392–395PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ghilardi MF, Gordon J, Ghez C (1995) Learning a visuomotor transformation in a local area of workspace produces directional biases in other areas. J Neurophysiol 73:2535–2539PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Gordon J, Ghilardi MF, Ghez C (1994) Accuracy of planar reaching movements – I. Independence of direction and extended variability. Exp Brain Res 99:97–111PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gribble PL, Ostry DJ, Sanguineti V, Laboissiere R (1998) Are complex control signals required for human arm movement? J Neurophysiol 79:1409–1424PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Hardcastle W, Marchal A (1990) Speech production and speech modeling. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  19. Harris CM, Wolpert DM (1998) Signal dependent noise determines motor planning. Nature 394:780–784PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hasan Z (1986) Optimized movement trajectories and joint stiffness in unperturbated, inertially loaded movement. Biol Cybern 53:373–382PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hofsten C (1991) Structuring of early reaching movements: a longitudinal study. J Mot Behav 23:280–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hollerbach JM, Flash T (1982) Dynamic interaction between limb segments during planar arm movements. Biol Cybern 44:67–77PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jacobs S, Hanneton S, Heude S, Roby-Brami A (2003) Is the velocity-curvature relationship disrupted in apraxic patients? Neuro Rep 14(15):1907–1911Google Scholar
  24. Jerde TE, Soechting JF, Flanders M (2003) Coarticulation in fluent finger spelling. J Neurosci 23(6):2383–2393PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Karniel A, Inbar GF (1997) A model for learning human reaching movements. Biol Cybern 77:173–183PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Karni A, Meyer G, Rey-Hipolito C, Jezzard P, Adams MM, Turner R, Ungerleider LG (1998) The acquisition of skilled motor performance: fast and slow experience-driven changes in primary motor cortex. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 95:861–868PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kent RD, Minifie FD (1977) Coarticulation in recent speech production models. J Phon 5:115–117Google Scholar
  28. Konczak J, Borutta M, Topka H, Dichgans J (1995) The development of goal-directed reaching in infants: hand trajectory formation and joint force control. Exp Brain Res 106:156–168PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Korman M, Raz N, Flash T, Karni A (2003) Multiple shifts in the representation of a motor sequence during the acquisition of skilled performance. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100(21):12492–12497PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Krebs HI, Aisen ML, Volpe BT, Hogan N (1999) Quantization of continuous arm movements in humans with brain injury. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96:4645–4649PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Krylow AM, Rymer WZ (1997) Role of intrinsic muscle properties in producing smooth movements. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 44:165–176PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lan N (1997) Analysis of an optimal control model of multi-joint arm movements. Biol Cybern 76:107–117PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. MacNeilage PF (1980) Speech production. Lang Speech 23:3–22PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. McIntyre J, Stratta F, Lacquaniti F (1997) Viewer-centered frame of reference for pointing to memorized targets in three-dimensional space. J Neurophysiol 78:1601–1618PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Messier J, Kalaska JF (1997) Differential effects of task conditions on errors of direction and extent of reaching movements. Exp Brain Res 115:469–478PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Messier J, Kalaska JF (1999) Comparison of variability of initial kinematics and endpoints of reaching movements. Exp Brain Res 125:139–152PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Morasso P (1981) Spatial control of arm movements. Exp Brain Res 43:223–227Google Scholar
  38. Morasso P, Mussa-Ivaldi FA (1982) Trajectory formation and handwriting: a computational model. Biol Cybern 45(2):131–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mussa-Ivaldi FA, Bizzi E (2000) Motor learning through the combination of primitives. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 355:1755–1769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Polyakov F, Flash T, Abeles M, Ben Shaul Y, Drori R, Nadasdy Z (2001) Analysis of motion planning and learning in monkey scribbling movements. In: Proceedings of the tenth biennial conference of the international graphonomics society 78:83Google Scholar
  41. Rohrer B, Fasoli S, Krebs HI, Hughes R, Volpe B, Frontera WR, Stein J, Hogan N (2002) Movement smoothness changes during stroke recovery. J Neurosci 22(18):8297–304PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Saltiel P, Wyler-Duda K, d’Avella A, Tresch M, Bizzi E (2001) Muscle synergies encoded within the spinal cord: evidence from focal intraspinal NMDA iontophoresis in the frog. J Neurophysiol. 85:605–619PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Santello M, Flanders M, Soechting JF (1998) Postural hand synergies for tool use. J Neurosci 18:10105–10115PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Shadmehr R, Mussa-Ivaldi FA (1994) Adaptive representation of dynamics during learning of a motor task. J Neurosci 14:3208–3224PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Soechting JF, Bueno CA, Hermann U, Flanders M (1995) Moving effortlessly in three dimensions: does Denders law applies to arm movements? J Neurosci 15:6271–6280PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Sosnik R, Hauptmann B, Karni A, Flash T (2004) When practice leads to co-articulation: the evolution of geometrically defined movement primitives. Exp Brain Res 156(4):422–438PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Todorov E, Jordan M (2002) Optimal feedback control as a theory of motor coordination. Nature Neurosci 5(11):1226:1235PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Todorov E, Jordan M (2003) In: Becker S, Thrun S, Obermayer K (eds) Advances in neural information processing system, vol 15. MIT, Cambridge, pp 27–34Google Scholar
  49. Torres E, Zipser D (2002) Reaching to grasp with a multi-jointed arm. I. Computational model. J Neurophysiol 88:2355–2367PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Uno Y, Kawato M, Ito K (1989) Formation and control of human trajectory in human multi joint arm movement—minimum torque change model. Biol Cybern 61:89–101PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Van den Dobbelsteen JJ, Brenner E, Smeets JBJ (2001) Endpoints of arm movements to visual targets. Exp Brain Res 138:279:287PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Van Beers RJ, Haggard P, Wolpert DM (2004) The role of execution noise in movement variability. J Neurophysiol 91:1050–1063PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Vindras P, Viviani P (1998) Frames of references and control parameters in visuomanual pointing. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 24:569–591PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Viviani P, Flash T (1995) Minimum-jerk, two-thirds power law, and isochrony: converging approaches to movement planning. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 21(1):32–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Weiss EJ, Flanders M (2004) Muscular and postural synergies of the human hand. J. Neurophysiol 92(1):523–535PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wolpert DM, Ghahramani Z, Jordan MI (1995) Are arm trajectories planned in kinematic or dynamic coordinates? An adaptation study. Exp Brain Res 103:460–470PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. d’Avella A, Santiel P, Bizzi E (2003) Contributions of muscle synergies in the construction of natural motor behavior. Nat Neurosci 6:300–308PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ronen Sosnik
    • 1
    Email author
  • Tamar Flash
    • 1
  • Bjoern Hauptmann
    • 2
    • 4
  • Avi Karni
    • 3
  1. 1.Weizmann Institute of ScienceRehovotIsrael
  2. 2.Department of NeurologyCharitéBerlinGermany
  3. 3.The Brain, Behavior Research CenterUniversity of HaifaMt. CarmelIsrael
  4. 4.Neurological CentreBad SegebergGermany

Personalised recommendations