Differential control of task and null space variability in response to changes in task difficulty when learning a bimanual steering task

  • Rakshith Lokesh
  • Rajiv RanganathanEmail author
Research Article


The presence of motor redundancy means that movement variability can be split into a ‘task-space’ component that affects task performance, and a ‘null space’ component which has no effect on task performance. While the control of task-space variability during learning is essential, because it is directly linked to performance, how the nervous system controls null space variability during learning has not been well understood. One factor that has been hypothesized to govern the change in null space variability with learning is task difficulty, but this has not been directly tested. Here, we examined how task difficulty influences the change in null space variability with learning. Healthy, college-aged participants (N = 36) performed a bimanual steering task, where they steered a cursor through a smooth W-shaped track of a certain width as quickly as possible while attempting to keep the cursor within the track. Task difficulty was altered by changing the track width and participants were split into one of the three groups based on the track width that they practiced on—wide, narrow, or progressive (where the width of the track progressively changed from wide to narrow over practice). The redundancy in this task arose from the fact that the position of the cursor was defined as the average position of the two hands. Results showed that movement time depended on task difficulty, but all groups were able to decrease their movement time with practice. Learning was associated with a reduction in null space variability in all groups, but critically, there was no effect of task difficulty. Further analyses showed that while the task-space variability showed an expected speed–accuracy tradeoff with movement time, the null space variability showed a qualitatively different pattern. These results suggest differential control of task and null space variability in response to changes in task difficulty with learning, and may reflect a strong preference to minimize overall movement variability during learning.


Variability Synergy Null space Task difficulty Bimanual UCM 



This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grants nos. 1703735 and 1823889.


  1. Accot J, Zhai S (1997) Beyond Fitts’ law: models for trajectory-based HCI tasks. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, New York, pp 295–302.
  2. Bachman JC (1961) Specificity vs. generality in learning and performing two large muscle motor tasks. Res Q Am Assoc Health Phys Educ Recreat 32:3–11. Google Scholar
  3. Baker KE, Wylie RC, Gagné RM (1950) Transfer of training to a motor skill as a function of variation in rate of response. J Exp Psychol 40(6):721. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernstein NA (1967) The coordination and regulation of movements. Pergamon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  5. Cardis M, Casadio M, Ranganathan R (2017) High variability impairs motor learning regardless of whether it affects task performance. J Neurophysiol 119:39–48. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cusumano JP, Cesari P (2006) Body-goal variability mapping in an aiming task. Biol Cybern 94:367–379. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Darling W, Cooke J (1987) Changes in the variability of movement trajectories with practice. J Mot Behav 19:291–309. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Day R (1956) Relative task difficulty and transfer of training in skilled performance. Psychol Bull 53:160. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Diedrichsen J (2007) Optimal task-dependent changes of bimanual feedback control and adaptation. Curr Biol 17:1675–1679. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Diedrichsen J, White O, Newman D, Lally N (2010) Use-dependent and error-based learning of motor behaviors. J Neurosci 30:5159–5166. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Domkin D, Laczko J, Jaric S, Johansson H, Latash ML (2002) Structure of joint variability in bimanual pointing tasks. Exp Brain Res 143:11–23. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fitts PM (1954) The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. J Exp Psychol 47:381. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Georgopoulos AP, Kalaska JF, Massey JT (1981) Spatial trajectories and reaction times of aimed movements: effects of practice, uncertainty, and change in target location. J Neurophysiol 46(4):725–743. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gottlieb G, Corcos D, Jaric S, Agacrwal G (1988) Practice improves even the simplest movements. Exp Brain Res 73:436–440. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Greve C, Hortobàgyi T, Bongers RM (2015) Physical demand but not dexterity is associated with motor flexibility during rapid reaching in healthy young adults. PLoS One 10(5):e0127017. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Harris CM, Wolpert DM (1998) Signal-dependent noise determines motor planning. Nature 394:780. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hasson CJ, Zhang Z, Abe MO, Sternad D (2016) Neuromotor noise is malleable by amplifying perceived errors. PLoS Comput Biol 12:e1005044. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Henry FM (1958) Specificity vs generality in learning motor skills. Proc Coll Phys Educ Assoc 61:126–128Google Scholar
  19. Huber ME, Kuznetsov N, Sternad D (2016) Persistence of reduced neuromotor noise in long-term motor skill learning. J Neurophysiol 116:2922–2935. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Latash ML (2010) Stages in learning motor synergies: a view based on the equilibrium-point hypothesis. Hum Mov Sci 29:642–654. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Latash ML (2012) The bliss (not the problem) of motor abundance (not redundancy). Exp Brain Res 217:1–5. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Liu X, Scheidt RA (2008) Contributions of online visual feedback to the learning and generalization of novel finger coordination patterns. J Neurophysiol 99:2546–2557. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Liu X, Mosier KM, Mussa-Ivaldi FA, Casadio M, Scheidt RA (2010) Reorganization of finger coordination patterns during adaptation to rotation and scaling of a newly learned sensorimotor transformation. J Neurophysiol 105:454–473. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mosier KM, Scheidt RA, Acosta S, Mussa-Ivaldi FA (2005) Remapping hand movements in a novel geometrical environment. J Neurophysiol 94:4362–4372. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ranganathan R, Newell KM (2010) Influence of motor learning on utilizing path redundancy. Neurosci Lett 469:416–420. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ranganathan R, Newell KM (2013) Changing up the routine: intervention-induced variability in motor learning. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 41:64–70. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ranganathan R, Adewuyi A, Mussa-Ivaldi FA (2013) Learning to be lazy: exploiting redundancy in a novel task to minimize movement-related effort. J Neurosci 33:2754–2760. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rosenblatt NJ, Hurt CP, Latash ML, Grabiner MD (2014) An apparent contradiction: increasing variability to achieve greater precision? Exp. Brain Res 232:403–413. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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 86:415. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Scholz JP, Schöner G (1999) The uncontrolled manifold concept: identifying control variables for a functional task. Exp Brain Res 126:289–306. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shim JK, Lay BS, Zatsiorsky VM, Latash ML (2004) Age-related changes in finger coordination in static prehension tasks. J Appl Physiol 97:213–224. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shmuelof L, Krakauer JW, Mazzoni P (2012) How is a motor skill learned? Change and invariance at the levels of task success and trajectory control. J Neurophysiol 108:578–594. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Todorov E, Jordan MI (2002) Optimal feedback control as a theory of motor coordination. Nat Neurosci 5:1226. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tseng YW, Scholz JP, Schöner G, Hotchkiss L (2003) Effect of accuracy constraint on joint coordination during pointing movements. Exp Brain Res 149(3):276–288. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Turvey MT, Fitch HL, Tuller B (1982) The Bernstein perspective: I. The problem of degrees of freedom and context-conditioned variability. In: Kelso JAS (ed) Human motor behavior: an introduction. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 239–251Google Scholar
  37. Woodworth RS, Thorndike E (1901) The influence of improvement in one mental function upon the efficiency of other functions. (I). Psychol Rev 8:247. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wu Y-H, Latash ML (2014) The effects of practice on coordination. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 42:37. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zhang W, Scholz JP, Zatsiorsky VM, Latash ML (2008) What do synergies do? Effects of secondary constraints on multidigit synergies in accurate force-production tasks. J Neurophysiol 99:500–513. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of KinesiologyMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical EngineeringMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations