Explore the vast range of titles available.

In a sequence of arm movements, any given segment could be influenced by its predecessors (carry-over coarticulation) and by its successor (anticipatory coarticulation). To study the interdependence of movement segments, we asked participants to move an object from an initial position to a first and then on to a second target location. The task involved ten joint angles controlling the three-dimensional spatial path of the object and hand. We applied the principle of the uncontrolled manifold (UCM) to analyze the difference between joint trajectories that either affect (non-motor equivalent) or do not affect (motor equivalent) the hand’s trajectory in space. We found evidence for anticipatory coarticulation that was distributed equally in the two directions in joint space. We also found strong carry-over coarticulation, which showed clear structure in joint space: More of the difference between joint configurations observed for different preceding movements lies in directions in joint space that leaves the hand’s path in space invariant than in orthogonal directions in joint space that varies the hand’s path in space. We argue that the findings are consistent with anticipatory coarticulation reflecting processes of movement planning that lie at the level of the hand’s trajectory in space. Carry-over coarticulation may reflect primarily processes of motor control that are governed by the principle of the UCM, according to which changes that do not affect the hand’s trajectory in space are not actively delimited. Two follow-up experiments zoomed in on anticipatory coarticulation. These experiments strengthened evidence for anticipatory coarticulation. Anticipatory coarticulation was motor-equivalent when visual information supported the steering of the object to its first target, but was not motor equivalent when that information was removed. The experiments showed that visual updating of the hand’s path in space when the object approaches the first target only affected the component of the joint difference vector orthogonal to the UCM, consistent with the UCM principle.

This article describes mechanistic links that exist in advanced brains between processes that regulate conscious attention, seeing, and knowing, and those that regulate looking and reaching. These mechanistic links arise from basic properties of brain design principles such as complementary computing, hierarchical resolution of uncertainty, and adaptive resonance. These principles require conscious states to mark perceptual and cognitive representations that are complete, context sensitive, and stable enough to control effective actions. Surface–shroud resonances support conscious seeing and action, whereas feature–category resonances support learning, recognition, and prediction of invariant object categories. Feedback interactions between cortical areas such as peristriate visual cortical areas V2, V3A, and V4, and the lateral intraparietal area (LIP) and inferior parietal sulcus (IPS) of the posterior parietal cortex (PPC) control sequences of saccadic eye movements that foveate salient features of attended objects and thereby drive invariant object category learning. Learned categories can, in turn, prime the objects and features that are attended and searched. These interactions coordinate processes of spatial and object attention, figure–ground separation, predictive remapping, invariant object category learning, and visual search. They create a foundation for learning to control motor-equivalent arm movement sequences, and for storing these sequences in cognitive working memories that can trigger the learning of cognitive plans with which to read out skilled movement sequences. Cognitive–emotional interactions that are regulated by reinforcement learning can then help to select the plans that control actions most likely to acquire valued goal objects in different situations. Many interdisciplinary psychological and neurobiological data about conscious and unconscious behaviors in normal individuals and clinical patients have been explained in terms of these concepts and mechanisms.

Coarticulation indicates a dependence of a movement segment on a preceding segment (carry-over coarticulation) or on the segment that follows (anticipatory coarticulation). Here we study coarticulation in multidegrees of freedom human arm movements. We asked participants to transport a cylinder from a starting position to a center target and on to a final target. In this naturalistic setting, the human arm has ten degrees of freedom and is thus comfortably redundant for the task. We studied coarticulation by comparing movements between the same spatial locations that were either preceded by different end-effector paths (carry-over coarticulation) or followed by different end-effector paths (anticipatory coarticulation). We found no evidence for coarticulation at the level of the end-effector. We found very clear evidence, however, for carry-over, not for anticipatory coarticulation at the joint level. We used the concept of the uncontrolled manifold to systematically establish coarticulation as a form of motor equivalence, in which most of the difference between different movement contexts lies within the uncontrolled manifold that leaves the end-effector invariant. The findings are consistent with movement planning occurring at the level of the end-effector, and those movement plans being transformed to the joint level by a form of inverse kinematics. The observation of massive self-motion excludes an account that is solely based on a kinematic pseudo-inverse.

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.

* A comprehensive guide to managing spastic hypertonia after brain injury and the first full overview of this area * The ideal reference for therapeutic interventions that optimise arm and hand function to support goal achievement * An extensive clinical manual for neurological practice, a key reference for students and qualified practitioners, and a valuable resource for all occupational therapists and physiotherapists working with brain-injured clients

In recent studies of human motor learning, subjects learned to move the arm while grasping a robotic device that applied novel patterns of forces to the hand. Here, we examined the generality of force field learning. We tested the idea that contextual cues associated with grasping a novel object promote the acquisition and use of a distinct internal model, associated with that object. Subjects learned to produce point-to-point arm movements to targets in a horizontal plane while grasping a robotic linkage that applied either a velocity-dependent counter-clockwise or clockwise force field to the hand. Following adaptation, subjects let go of the robot and were asked to generate the same movements in free space. Small but reliable after-effects were observed during the first eight movements in free space, however, these after-effects were significantly smaller than those observed for control subjects who moved the robot in a null field. No reduction in retention was observed when subjects subsequently returned to the force field after moving in free space. In contrast, controls who reached with the robot in a NF showed much poorer retention when returning to a force field. These findings are consistent with the idea that contextual cues associated with grasping a novel object may promote the acquisition of a distinct internal model of the dynamics of the object, separate from internal models used to control limb dynamics alone.

Based on the principles of neuromechanics, human arm movements result from the dynamic interaction between the nervous, muscular, and skeletal systems. To develop an effective neural feedback controller for neuro-rehabilitation training, it is important to consider both the effects of muscles and skeletons. In this study, we designed a neuromechanics-based neural feedback controller for arm reaching movements. To achieve this, we first constructed a musculoskeletal arm model based on the actual biomechanical structure of the human arm. Subsequently, a hybrid neural feedback controller was developed that mimics the multifunctional areas of the human arm. The performance of this controller was then validated through numerical simulation experiments. The simulation results demonstrated a bell-shaped movement trajectory, consistent with the natural motion of human arm movements. Furthermore, the experiment testing the tracking ability of the controller revealed real-time errors within one millimeter, with the tensile force generated by the controller’s muscles being stable and maintained at a low value, thereby avoiding the issue of muscle strain that can occur due to excessive excitation during the neurorehabilitation process.

The 2/3 power law, the nonlinear relationship between tangential velocity and radius of curvature of the end-effector trajectory, is thought to be a fundamental constraint of the central nervous system in the formation of rhythmic endpoint trajectories. However, studies on the 2/3 power law have been confined largely to planar drawing patterns of relatively small size. With the hypothesis that this strategy overlooks nonlinear effects that are constitutive in movement generation, the present experiments tested the validity of the power law in elliptical patterns that were not confined to a planar surface and which were performed by the unconstrained 7-degrees of freedom (DOF) arm, with significant variations in pattern size and workspace orientation. Data were recorded from five human subjects where the seven joint angles and the endpoint trajectories were analyzed. Additionally, an anthropomorphic 7-DOF robot arm served as a \"control subject\" whose endpoint trajectories were generated on the basis of the human joint angle data, modeled as simple harmonic oscillations. Analyses of the endpoint trajectories demonstrate that the power law is systematically violated with increasing pattern size, in both exponent and the goodness of fit. The origins of these violations can be explained analytically based on smooth, rhythmic trajectory formation and the kinematic structure of the human arm. We conclude that, in unconstrained rhythmic movements, the power law seems to be a by-product of a movement system that favors smooth trajectories, and that it is unlikely to serve as a primary movement-generating principle. Our data rather suggest that subjects employed smooth oscillatory pattern generators in joint space to realize the required movement patterns.

It is uncertain how vision and proprioception contribute to adaptation of voluntary arm movements. In normal participants, adaptation to imposed forces is possible with or without vision, suggesting that proprioception is sufficient; in participants with proprioceptive loss (PL), adaptation is possible with visual feedback, suggesting that proprioception is unnecessary. In experiment 1 adaptation to, and retention of, perturbing forces were evaluated in three chronically deafferented participants. They made rapid reaching movements to move a cursor toward a visual target, and a planar robot arm applied orthogonal velocity-dependent forces. Trial-by-trial error correction was observed in all participants. Such adaptation has been characterized with a dual-rate model: a fast process that learns quickly, but retains poorly and a slow process that learns slowly and retains well. Experiment 2 showed that the PL participants had large individual differences in learning and retention rates compared to normal controls. Experiment 3 tested participants’ perception of applied forces. With visual feedback, the PL participants could report the perturbation’s direction as well as controls; without visual feedback, thresholds were elevated. Experiment 4 showed, in healthy participants, that force direction could be estimated from head motion, at levels close to the no-vision threshold for the PL participants. Our results show that proprioceptive loss influences perception, motor control and adaptation but that proprioception from the moving limb is not essential for adaptation to, or detection of, force fields. The differences in learning and retention seen between the three deafferented participants suggest that they achieve these tasks in idiosyncratic ways after proprioceptive loss, possibly integrating visual and vestibular information with individual cognitive strategies.

We explored in 75 s long trials the effects of visually induced self-rotation and displacement (SR&D) on the horizontally extended right arm of standing subjects (N = 12). A “tool condition” was included in which subjects held a long rod. The extent of arm movement was contingent on whether the arm was extended out Freely or Pointing at a briefly proprioceptively specified target position. The results were nearly identical when subjects held the rod. Subjects in the Free conditions showed significant unintentional arm deviations, averaging 55° in the direction opposite the induced illusory self-motion. Deviations in the Pointing conditions were on average a fifth of those in the Free condition. Deviations of head and torso positions also occurred in all conditions. Total arm and head deviations were the sum of deviations of the arm and head with respect to the torso and deviations of the torso with respect to space. Pointing subjects were able to detect and correct for arm and head deviations with respect to the torso but not for the arm and head deviations with respect to space due to deviations of the torso. In all conditions, arm, head, and torso deviations began before subjects experienced SR&D. We relate our findings to being an extension of the manual following response (MFR) mechanism to influence passive arm control and arm target maintenance as well. Visual-vestibular convergence at vestibular nuclei cells and multiple cortical movement related areas can explain our results, MFR results, and classical Pass Pointing. We distinguish two Phases in the induction of SR&D. In Phase 1, the visual stimulation period prior to SR&D onset, the arm, head, and torso deviations are first apparent, circa < 1 s after stimulus begins. They are augmented at the onset of Phase 2 that starts when SR&D is first sensed. In Phase 2, reaching movements first show curved paths that are compensatory for the Coriolis forces that would be generated on the reaching arm were subjects actually physically rotating. These movement deviations are in the opposite direction to the MFR and the arm, head, and torso deviations reported here. Our results have implications for vehicle control in environments that can induce illusory self motion and displacement.