Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 222, Issue 3, pp 185–200 | Cite as

Naturalistic arm movements during obstacle avoidance in 3D and the identification of movement primitives

Research Article

Abstract

By studying human movement in the laboratory, a number of regularities and invariants such as planarity and the principle of isochrony have been discovered. The theoretical idea has gained traction that movement may be generated from a limited set of movement primitives that would encode these invariants. In this study, we ask if invariants and movement primitives capture naturalistic human movement. Participants moved objects to target locations while avoiding obstacles using unconstrained arm movements in three dimensions. Two experiments manipulated the spatial layout of targets, obstacles, and the locations in the transport movement where an obstacle was encountered. We found that all movement trajectories were planar, with the inclination of the movement plane reflecting the obstacle constraint. The timing of the movement was consistent with both global isochrony (same movement time for variable path lengths) and local isochrony (same movement time for two components of the obstacle avoidance movement). The identified movement primitives of transport (movement from start to target position) and lift (movement perpendicular to transport within the movement plane) varied independently with obstacle conditions. Their scaling accounted for the observed double peak structure of movement speed. Overall, the observed naturalistic movement was astoundingly regular. Its decomposition into primitives suggests simple mechanisms for movement generation.

Keywords

Motor control 3D human arm movements Obstacle avoidance Movement primitives Path selection 

References

  1. Abend W, Bizzi E, Morasso P (1982) Human arm trajectory formation. Brain 105(Pt 2):331–348PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atkeson CG, Hollerbach JM (1985) Kinematic features of unrestrained vertical arm movements. J Neurosci 5(9):2318–2330PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bizzi E, Mussa-Ivaldi FA, Giszter S (1991) Computations underlying the execution of movement: a biological perspective. Science 253(5017):287–291PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chapman CS, Goodale MA (2008) Missing in action: the effect of obstacle position and size on avoidance while reaching. Exp Brain Res 191(1):83–97PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. d’Avella A, Portone A, Fernandez L, Lacquaniti F (2006) Control of fast-reaching movements by muscle synergy combinations. J Neurosci 26(30):7791–7810PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dean J, Brüwer M (1994) Control of human arm movements in two dimensions: paths and joint control in avoiding simple linear obstacles. Exp Brain Res 97(3):497–514PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Degallier S, Righetti L, Gay S, Ijspeert AJ (2011) Toward simple control for complex, autonomous robotic applications: combining discrete and rhythmic motor primitives. Auton Robots 31(2–3):155–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Flash T, Henis E (1991) Arm trajectory modifications during reaching towards visual targets. J Cogn Neurosci 3(3):220–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Flash T, Hogan N (1985) The coordination of arm movements: an experimentally confirmed mathematical model. J Neurosci 5(7):1688–1703PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Harris CM, Wolpert DM (1998) Signal-dependent noise determines motor planning. Nature 394(6695):780–784PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hasan Z (1986) Optimized movement trajectories and joint stiffness in unperturbed, inertially loaded movements. Biol Cybern 53(6):373–382Google Scholar
  12. Ijspeert A, Nakanishi J, Schaal S (2001) Trajectory formation for imitation with nonlinear dynamical systems. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS2001), vol 2, pp 752–757Google Scholar
  13. Jaric S, Latash ML (1998) Learning a motor task involving obstacles by a multi-joint, redundant limb: two synergies within one movement. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 8(3):169–176PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lacquaniti F, Terzuolo C, Viviani P (1983) The law relating the kinematic and figural aspects of drawing movements. Acta Psychol (Amst) 54(1–3):115–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Maoz U, Berthoz A, Flash T (2009) Complex unconstrained three-dimensional hand movement and constant equi-affine speed. J Neurophysiol 101(2):1002–1015PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Morasso P (1981) Spatial control of arm movements. Exp Brain Res 42(2):223–227PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Morasso P (1983) Three dimensional arm trajectories. Biol Cybern 48(3):187–194PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mussa-Ivaldi FA, Bizzi E (2000) Motor learning through the combination of primitives. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 355(1404):1755–1769, doi:10.1098/rstb.2000.0733 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Overduin SA, d’Avella A, Roh J, Bizzi E (2008) Modulation of muscle synergy recruitment in primate grasping. J Neurosci 28(4):880–892PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pellizzer G, Massey JT, Lurito JT, Georgopoulos AP (1992) Three-dimensional drawings in isometric conditions: planar segmentation of force trajectory. Exp Brain Res 92(2):326–337PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pollick FE, Maoz U, Handzel AA, Giblin PJ, Sapiro G, Flash T (2009) Three-dimensional arm movements at constant equi-affine speed. Cortex 45(3):325–339PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sabes PN, Jordan MI (1997) Obstacle avoidance and a perturbation sensitivity model for motor planning. J Neurosci 17(18):7119–7128PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Saling M, Alberts J, Stelmach GE, Bloedel JR (1998) Reach-to-grasp movements during obstacle avoidance. Exp Brain Res 118(2):251–258PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schaal S, Schweighofer N (2005) Computational motor control in humans and robots. Curr Opin Neurobiol 15(6):675–682PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Soechting JF, Terzuolo CA (1987) Organization of arm movements in three-dimensional space. Wrist motion is piecewise planar. Neuroscience 23(1):53–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sternad D, Schaal S (1999) Segmentation of endpoint trajectories does not imply segmented control. Exp Brain Res 124(1):118–136PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Torres E, Andersen R (2006) Space-time separation during obstacle-avoidance learning in monkeys. J Neurophysiol 96(5):2613–2632PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Uno Y, Kawato M, Suzuki R (1989) Formation and control of optimal trajectory in human multijoint arm movement. Minimum torque-change model. Biol Cybern 61(2):89–101PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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
  30. Viviani P, McCollum G (1983) The relation between linear extent and velocity in drawing movements. Neuroscience 10(1):211–218PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Viviani P, Burkhard PR, Chiuv SC, Corradi-Dell’Acqua C, Vindras P (2009) Velocity control in parkinson’s disease: a quantitative analysis of isochrony in scribbling movements. Exp Brain Res 194(2):259–283PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut für NeuroinformatikRuhr University BochumBochumGermany

Personalised recommendations