Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 189, Issue 4, pp 421–434 | Cite as

Neuromuscular and biomechanical factors codetermine the solution to motor redundancy in rhythmic multijoint arm movement

  • Aymar de Rugy
  • Stephan Riek
  • Yalchin Oytam
  • Timothy J. Carroll
  • Rahman Davoodi
  • Richard G. Carson
Research Article


How the CNS deals with the issue of motor redundancy remains a central question for motor control research. Here we investigate the means by which neuromuscular and biomechanical factors interact to resolve motor redundancy in rhythmic multijoint arm movements. We used a two-df motorised robot arm to manipulate the dynamics of rhythmic flexion–extension (FE) and supination–pronation (SP) movements at the elbow-joint complex. Participants were required to produce rhythmic FE and SP movements, either in isolation, or in combination (at the phase relationship of their choice), while we recorded the activity of key bi-functional muscles. When performed in combination, most participants spontaneously produced an in-phase pattern of coordination in which flexion is synchronised with supination. The activity of the Biceps Brachii (BB), the strongest arm muscle which also has the largest moment arms in both flexion and supination was significantly higher for FE and SP performed in combination than in isolation, suggesting optimal exploitation of the mechanical advantage of this muscle. In a separate condition, participants were required to produce a rhythmic SP movement while a rhythmic FE movement was imposed by the motorised robot. Simulations based upon a musculoskeletal model of the arm demonstrated that in this context, the most efficient use of the force–velocity relationship of BB requires that an anti-phase pattern of coordination (flexion synchronized with pronation) be produced. In practice, the participants maintained the in-phase behavior, and BB activity was higher than for SP performed in isolation. This finding suggests that the neural organisation underlying the exploitation of bifunctional muscle properties, in the natural context, constrains the system to maintain the “natural” coordination pattern in an altered dynamic environment, even at the cost of reduced biomechanical efficiency. We suggest an important role for afference from the imposed movement in promoting the “natural” pattern. Practical implications for the emerging field of robot-assisted therapy and rehabilitation are briefly mentioned.


Motor Control Neuromuscular Constraints Biomechanics Rhythmic multijoint arm movement 



This work was supported by The Australian Research Council, The National Health and Medical Research Council, and a University of Queensland Early Career Researcher Grant awarded to the first author.


  1. Batschelet E (1981) Circular statistics in biology. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. Bernstein N (1967) The co-ordination and regulation of movements. Pergamon, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. Bobbert MF, Zandwijk JPV (1994) Dependence of human maximum jump height on moment arms of the bi-articular m. gastrocnemius; a simulation study. Hum Mov Sci 13:697–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brooke JD, Cheng J, Collins DF, McIlroy WE, Misiaszek JE, Staines WR (1997) Sensori-sensory afferent conditioning with leg movement: gain control in spinal reflex and ascending paths. Prog Neurobiol 51:393–421PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burke RE (1999) The use of state-dependent modulation of spinal reflexes as a tool to investigate the organization of spinal interneurons. Exp Brain Res 128:263–277PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cheung VC, d’Avella A, Tresch MC, Bizzi E (2005) Central and sensory contributions to the activation and organization of muscle synergies during natural motor behaviors. J Neurosci 25:6419–6434PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cnockaert JC, Lensel G, Pertuzon E (1975) Relative contribution of individual muscles to the isometric contraction of a muscular group. J Biomech 8:191–197PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. d’Avella A, Saltiel P, Bizzi E (2003) Combinations of muscle synergies in the construction of a natural motor behavior. Nat Neurosci 6:300–308PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davoodi R, Loeb GE (2002) A software tool for faster development of complex models of musculoskeletal systems and sensorimotor controllers in Simulink. J Appl Biomech 18:357–365Google Scholar
  10. de Rugy A, Riek S, Carson RG (2006a) Neuromuscular-skeletal origins of predominant patterns of coordination in rhythmic two-joint arm movement. J Mot Behav 38:7–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. de Rugy A, Riek S, Carson RG (2006b) Influence of predominant patterns of coordination on the exploitation of interaction torques in a two-joint rhythmic arm movement. Exp Brain Res 175:439–452PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Debicki DB, Gribble PL (2005) Persistence of inter-joint coupling during single-joint elbow flexions after shoulder fixation. Exp Brain Res 163:252–257PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ettema GJ, Taylor E, North JD, Kippers V (2005) Muscle synergies at the elbow in static and oscillating isometric torque tasks with dual degrees of freedom. Motor Control 9:59–74PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Ettema G, Styles G, Kippers V (1998) The moment arms of 23 muscles segments of the upper limb with varying elbow and forearm positions: implications for motor control. Hum Mov Sci 17:201–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ferraro M, Palazzolo JJ, Krol J, Krebs HI, Hogan N, Volpe BT (2003) Robot-aided sensorimotor arm training improves outcome in patients with chronic stroke. Neurology 61:1604–1607PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Gielen CC, Ramaekers L, van Zuylen EJ (1988) Long-latency stretch reflexes as co-ordinated functional responses in man. J Physiol 407:275–292PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Gielen CCAM, van Bolhuis BM, Theeuwen M (1995) On the control of biologically and kinematically redundant manipulators. Hum Mov Sci 14:487–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gielen CCAM, van Ingen Schenau GJ (1992) The constrained control of force and position by multilink manipulators. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 22:1214–1219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Herder JL, Vrijlandt N, Antonides T, Cloosterman M, Mastenbroek PL (2006) Principle and design of a mobile arm support for people with muscular weakness. J Rehabil Res Dev 43:591–604PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hogan N, Krebs HI (2004) Interactive robots for neuro-rehabilitation. Restor Neurol Neurosci 22:349–358PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Holzbaur KR, Murray WM, Delp SL (2005) A model of the upper extremity for simulating musculoskeletal surgery and analyzing neuromuscular control. Ann Biomed Eng 33:829–840PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jacobs R, Bobbert MF, n Schenau GJ (1996) Mechanical output from individual muscles during explosive leg extensions: the role of biarticular muscles. J Biomech 29:513–523PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jamison JC, Caldwell GE (1993) Muscle synergies and isometric torque production: influence of supination and pronation level on elbow flexion. J Neurophysiol 70:947–960PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Kahn LE, Zygman ML, Rymer WZ, Reinkensmeyer DJ (2006) Robot-assisted reaching exercise promotes arm movement recovery in chronic hemiparetic stroke: a randomized controlled pilot study. J Neuroeng Rehabil 3:12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Keppel G (1991) Design and analysis: a researcher’s handbook, 3rd edn. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  26. Koshland GF, Hasan Z (2000) Electromyographic responses to a mechanical perturbation applied during impending arm movements in different directions: one-joint and two-joint conditions. Exp Brain Res 132:485–499PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Koshland GF, Hasan Z, Gerilovsky L (1991) Activity of wrist muscles elicited during imposed or voluntary movements about the elbow joint. J Mot Behav 23:91–100PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Lacquaniti F, Soechting JF (1986) EMG responses to load perturbations of the upper limb: effect of dynamic coupling between shoulder and elbow motion. Exp Brain Res 61:482–496PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Latash ML (2000) The organization of quick corrections within a two-joint synergy in conditions of unexpected blocking and release of a fast movement. Clin Neurophysiol 111:975–987PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Latash ML, Scholz JP, Schoner G (2007) Toward a new theory of motor synergies. Motor Control 11:276–308PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Lemay MA, Crago PE (1996) A dynamic model for simulating movements of the elbow, forearm, an wrist. J Biomech 29:1319–1330PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McCrea DA (2001) Spinal circuitry of sensorimotor control of locomotion. J Physiol 533:41–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Murray WM (1997) The functional capacity of the elbow muscles: anatomical measurements, computer modeling. and anthropometric scaling. Ph.D, thesis, Northwestern UniversityGoogle Scholar
  34. Murray WM, Delp SL, Buchanan TS (1995) Variation of muscle moment arms with elbow and forearm position. J Biomech 28:513–525PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Murray WM, Buchanan TS, Delp SL (2000) The isometric functional capacity of muscles that cross the elbow. J Biomech 33:943–952PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Naito A, Shindo M, Miyasaka T, Sun YJ, Morita H (1996) Inhibitory projection from brachioradialis to biceps brachii motoneurones in human. Exp Brain Res 111:483–486PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Naito A, Shindo M, Miyasaka T, Sun YJ, Momoi H, Chishima M (1998a) Inhibitory projections from pronator teres to biceps brachii motoneurones in human. Exp Brain Res 121:99–102PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Naito A, Sun YJ, Yajima M, Fukamachi H, Ushikoshi K (1998b) Electromyographic study of the elbow flexors and extensors in a motion of forearm pronation/supination while maintaining elbow flexion in humans. Tohoku J Exp Med 186:267–277PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Naito A (2004) Electrophysiological studies of muscles in the human upper limb: the biceps brachii. Anat Sci Int 79:11–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pearson KG (2004) Generating the walking gait: role of sensory feedback. Prog Brain Res 143:123–129PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pierce C, Block R, Aguinis H (2004) Cautionary note on reporting eta-squared values from multifactor ANOVA designs. Educ Psychol Meas 64:916–924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pierrot-Deseilligny E (1996) Transmission of the cortical command for human voluntary movement through cervical propriospinal premotoneurons. Prog Neurobiol 48:489–517PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Praagman M, Veeger HE, Chadwick EK, Colier WN, van der Helm FC (2003) Muscle oxygen consumption, determined by NIRS, in relation to external force and EMG. J Biomech 36:905–912PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Prilutsky BI, Zatsiorsky VM (1994) Tendon action of two-joint muscles: transfer of mechanical energy between joints during jumping, landing, and running. J Biomech 27:25–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Prilutsky BI, Herzog W, Allinger TL (1996) Mechanical power and work of cat soleus, gastrocnemius and plantaris muscles during locomotion: possible functional significance of muscle design and force patterns. J Exp Biol 199:801–814PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Rahman T, Sample W, Jayakumar S, King MM, Wee JY, Seliktar R, Alexander M, Scavina M, Clark A (2006) Passive exoskeletons for assisting limb movement. J Rehabil Res Dev 43:583–590PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Riener R, Lunenburger L, Colombo G (2006) Human-centered robotics applied to gait training and assessment. J Rehabil Res Dev 43:679–694PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Russell DM, Sternad D (2001) Sinusoidal visuomotor tracking: intermittent servo-control or coupled oscillations? J Mot Behav 33:329–349PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Scheidt RA, Rymer WZ (2000) Control strategies for the transition from multijoint to single-joint arm movements studied using a simple mechanical constraint. J Neurophysiol 83:1–12PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Scholz JP, Schoner G (1999) The uncontrolled manifold concept: identifying control variables for a functional task. Exp Brain Res 126:289–230PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sergio LE, Ostry DJ (1994) Coordination of mono- and bi-articular muscles in multi-degree of freedom elbow movements. Exp Brain Res 97:551–555PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sergio LE, Ostry DJ (1995) Coordination of multiple muscles in two degree of freedom elbow movements. Exp Brain Res 105:123–137PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Shemmell J, Forner M, Tresilian JR, Riek S, Barry BK, Carson RG (2005a) Neuromuscular adaptation during skill acquisition on a two degree-of-freedom target-acquisition task: isometric torque production. J Neurophysiol 94:3046–3057PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Shemmell J, Tresilian JR, Riek S, Barry BK, Carson RG (2005b) Neuromuscular adaptation during skill acquisition on a two degree-of-freedom target-acquisition task: dynamic movement. J Neurophysiol 94:3058–3068PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Ter Haar Romeny BM, Denier van der Gon JJ, Gielen CC (1984) Relation between location of a motor unit in the human biceps brachii and its critical firing levels for different tasks. Exp Neurol 85:631–650PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Todorov E (2004) Optimality principles in sensorimotor control. Nat Neurosci 7:907–915PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. van Schenau GJ (1989) From rotation to translation: constraints on multi-joint movements and the unique action of bi-articular muscles. Hum Mov Sci 8:301–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. van Soest AJ, Schwab AL, Bobbert MF, van Ingen Schenau GJ (1993) The influence of the biarticularity of the gastrocnemius muscle on vertical-jumping achievement. J Biomech 26:1–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. van Zuylen EJ, Gielen CC, Denier van der Gon JJ (1988) Coordination and inhomogeneous activation of human arm muscles during isometric torques. J Neurophysiol 60:1523–1548PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Windhorst U, Burke RE, Dieringer N, Evinger C, Feldman AG, Hasan Z (1991) What are the outputs of motor behavior and how are they controlled? In: Humphrey DR, Freund H-J (eds) Motor control: concepts and issues. Wiley, New York, pp 101–119Google Scholar
  61. Zajac FE (1989) Muscle and tendon: properties, models, scaling, and application to biomechanics and motor control. Crit Rev Biomed Eng 17:359–411PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aymar de Rugy
    • 1
  • Stephan Riek
    • 1
  • Yalchin Oytam
    • 1
  • Timothy J. Carroll
    • 1
  • Rahman Davoodi
    • 2
  • Richard G. Carson
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Perception and Motor Systems Laboratory, School of Human Movement StudiesThe University of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.A.E. Mann Institute for Biomedical EngineeringUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  3. 3.School of PsychologyQueen’s University BelfastBelfastNorthern Ireland

Personalised recommendations