Estimation of Visual Feedback Contribution to Limb Stiffness in Visuomotor Control

  • Yuki Ueyama
  • Eizo Miyashita
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7670)


The purpose of this work was to investigate contribution of a visual feedback system to limb stiffness. It is difficult to differentiate the visual component from others out of measured data obtained by applying a force perturbation, which is required to estimate stiffness,. In this study, we proposed an experimental procedure consisted of a pair of tasks to investigate the visual feedback component, and showed it as end-point stiffness ellipses at several timings of a movement. In addition, we carried out a numerical simulation of the movement with the perturbation in according with a framework of optimal feedback control model. As results, long axes of the stiffness ellipses of the visual component were modulated to the movement directions and the simulation showed that a positional feedback gain was exponentially increased toward a movement end. Consequently, the visual feedback system is supposed to regulate compliance of a movement direction.


Visual Feedback Feedback Gain Force Perturbation Visual Error Perturbation Onset 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Saijo, N., Gomi, H.: Multiple motor learning strategies in visuomotor rotation. PLoS One 5, e9399 (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Izawa, J., Shadmehr, R.: On-line processing of uncertain information in visuomotor control. J. Neurosci. 28, 11360–11368 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Todorov, E., Jordan, M.I.: Optimal feedback control as a theory of motor coordination. Nat. Neurosci. 5, 1226–1235 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Todorov, E.: Optimality principles in sensorimotor control (review). Nature Neuroscience 7, 907 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Liu, D., Todorov, E.: Evidence for the flexible sensorimotor strategies predicted by optimal feedback control. J. Neurosci. 27, 9354–9368 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Izawa, J., Shadmehr, R.: Learning from Sensory and Reward Prediction Errors during Motor Adaptation. PLoS Computational Biology 7, e1002012 (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Izawa, J., Rane, T., Donchin, O., Shadmehr, R.: Motor adaptation as a process of reoptimization. J. Neurosci. 28, 2883–2891 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nagengast, A.J., Braun, D.A., Wolpert, D.M.: Optimal control predicts human performance on objects with internal degrees of freedom. PLoS Comput. Biol. 5, e1000419 (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ueyama, Y., Miyashita, E.: Cocontraction of Pairs of Muscles around Joints Improve an Accuracy of a Reaching Movement: a Numerical Simulation Study. In: 2011 International Symposium on Computational Models for Life Sciences (CMLS 2011), pp. 73–82. American Institute of Physics (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pruszynski, J.A., Kurtzer, I., Scott, S.H.: Rapid motor responses are appropriately tuned to the metrics of a visuospatial task. J. Neurophysiol. 100, 224–238 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pruszynski, J.A., Kurtzer, I., Nashed, J.Y., Omrani, M., Brouwer, B., Scott, S.H.: Primary motor cortex underlies multi-joint integration for fast feedback control. Nature, 387–390 (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ueyama, Y., Miyashita, E.: A Numerical Simulation Using Optimal Control Can Estimate Stiffness Profiles of a Monkey Arm During Reaching Movements. In: Conf. Proc IEEE The 12th International Workshop on Advanced Motion Control, pp. 1–6 (Year)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Winter, D.A.: Biomechanics and motor control of human movement. John Wiley & Sons Inc. (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Slifkin, A.B., Newell, K.M.: Variability and noise in continuous force production. Journal of Motor Behavior 32, 141–150 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Harris, C.M., Wolpert, D.M.: Signal-dependent noise determines motor planning. Nature 394, 780–784 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Crevecoeur, F., McIntyre, J., Thonnard, J.L., Lefevre, P.: Movement stability under uncertain internal models of dynamics. Journal of Neurophysiology 104, 1301–1313 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gawthrop, P., Loram, I., Lakie, M., Gollee, H.: Intermittent control: A computational theory of human control. Biological Cybernetics, 1–21 (2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nakano, E., Imamizu, H., Osu, R., Uno, Y., Gomi, H., Yoshioka, T., Kawato, M.: Quantitative examinations of internal representations for arm trajectory planning: minimum commanded torque change model. J. Neurophysiol. 81, 2140–2155 (1999)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yuki Ueyama
    • 1
  • Eizo Miyashita
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computational Intelligence and Systems Science, Interdisciplinary Graduate School of Science and EngineeringTokyo Institute of TechnologyYokohamaJapan

Personalised recommendations