Computational approaches to motor control and their potential role for interpreting motor dysfunction

Current Opinion in Neurology

Volumn 16, Issue 6, 2003, Pages 693-698

  Scott, Stephen H ^a   Norman, Kathleen E ^a  

^a QUEEN S UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Internal models; Motor control; Motor disorders; Motor rehabilitation; Optimal feedback control

Indexed keywords

DYSMETRIA; FEEDBACK SYSTEM; HUMAN; HUNTINGTON CHOREA; LIMB MOVEMENT; MOTOR CONTROL; MOTOR DYSFUNCTION; MUSCULOSKELETAL SYSTEM; PARKINSON DISEASE; REVIEW; SENSORIMOTOR FUNCTION; SPASTICITY;

ANIMALS; BRAIN; EFFERENT PATHWAYS; EXTREMITIES; FEEDBACK; HUMANS; MODELS, NEUROLOGICAL; MOVEMENT; MUSCLE, SKELETAL; PRIMATES;

EID: 1842506397     PISSN: 13507540     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00019052-200312000-00008     Document Type: Review

References (61)

1. Miall RC, Wolpert DM. Forward models for physiological motor control. Neural Networks 1996; 9:1265-1279.
2. Wolpert DM, Miall RC, Kawato M. Internal models in the cerebellum. Trends Cogn Sci 1998; 2:338-347.
3. Todorov E, Jordan MI. Optimal feedback control as a theory of motor coordination. Nat Neurosci 2002; 5:1226-1235. This article introduces the hypothesis that the motor system may behave like an optimal feedback controller. The theory predicts selective correction of errors during a motor task: errors that influence motor performance are corrected whereas those that do not influence performance are ignored. Several didactic examples are provided to show how features of limb movements such as motor synergies and goal-directed corrections can be predicted with this theory.
4. Scott SH. Optimal strategies for movement: success with variability. Nat Neurosci 2002; 5:1110-1111.
5. Hinder MR, Milner TE. The case for an internal dynamics model versus equilibrium point control in human movement. J Physiol 2003; 549:953-963. Subjects were trained to make goal-directed wrist flexion movements while a motor generated an assistive load proportional to joint velocity. Abrupt reduction of this load resulted in systematic errors as subjects stopped short of the target. This study provides further support for the idea that the brain uses an internal model of limb dynamics to control movement and is inconsistent with the equilibrium point hypothesis.
6. Hollerbach JM, Flash T. Dynamic interactions between limb segments during planar arm movement. Biol Cybernet 1982; 44:67-77.
7. Graham KM, Moore KD, Cabel DW, et al. Kinematics and kinetics of multijoint reaching in nonhuman primates. J Neurophysiol 2003; 89:2667-2677.
8. Gribble PL, Ostry DJ. Compensation for interaction torques during single- and multi-joint limb movement. J Neurophysiol 1999; 82:2310-2326.
9. Scheidt RA, Rymer WZ. Control strategies for the transition from multijoint to single-joint arm movements studied using a simple mechanical constraint. J Neurophysiol 2000; 83:1-12.
10. Mussa-Ivaldi FA, Hogan N, Bizzi E. Neural, mechanical, and geometric factors subserving arm posture in humans. J Neurosci 1985; 5:2732-2743.
11. Flanagan JR, Lolley S. The inertial anisotropy of the arm is accurately predicted during movement planning. J Neurosci 2001; 21:1361-1369.
12. Sainburg RL. Evidence for a dynamic-dominance hypothesis of handedness. Exp Brain Res 2002; 142:241-258.
13. Bagesteiro LB, Sainburg RL. Handedness: dominant arm advantages in control of limb dynamics. J Neurophysiol 2002; 88:2408-2421.
14. Bagesteiro LB, Sainburg RL. Nondominant arm advantages in load compensation during rapid elbow joint movements. J Neurophysiol 2003; (in press).
15. Criscimagna-Hemminger SE, Donchin O, Gazzaniga MS, Shadmehr R. Learned dynamics of reaching movements generalize from dominant to nondominant arm. J Neurophysiol 2003; 89:168-176.
16. Sergio LE, Kalaska JF. Systematic changes in motor cortex cell activity with arm posture during directional isometric force generation. J Neurophysiol 2003; 89:212-228. A major strength of this article is a comprehensive discussion of the large body of literature addressing the relationship between motor cortical activity and movement control.
17. Ashe J. Force and the motor cortex. Behav Brain Res 1997; 87:255-269.
18. Scott SH, Gribble PL, Graham KM, Cabel DW. Dissociation between hand motion and population vectors from neural activity in motor cortex. Nature 2001; 413:161-165.
19. Scott SH, Kalaska JF. Reaching movements with similar hand paths but different arm orientations: I. Activity of individual cells in motor cortex. J Neurophysiol 1997; 77:826-852.
20. Lackner JR, DiZio P. Rapid adaptation to coriolis force perturbations of arm trajectory. J Neurophysiol 1994; 72:299-313.
21. Shadmehr R, Mussa-Ivaldi FA. Rapid adaptation to coriolis force perturbations of arm trajectory. J Neurosci 1994; 14:3208-3224.
22. Morasso P. Spatial control of arm movements. Exp Brain Res 1981; 42:223-227.
23. Davidson PR, Wolpert DM. Motor learning and prediction in a variable environment. Curr Opin Neurobiol 2003; 13:232-237. This review covers recent advances from behavioural studies on motor learning. Of particular interest is recent work on learning multiple contexts, motor prediction, and how uncertainty influences motor learning.
24. Sanes JN. Neocortical mechanisms in motor learning. Curr Opin Neurobiol 2003; 13:225-231. A review of recent work on the role of cerebral cortex in motor learning. This article explores learning from a much broader perspective than in the present article, including how the neocortex is involved in learning sequences, arbitrary sensorimotor associations, and improvement in motor performance through practice.
25. Scheidt RA, Dingwell JB, Mussa-Ivaldi FA. Learning to move amid uncertainty. J Neurophysiol 2001; 86:971-985.
26. Flanagan JR, Vetter P, Johansson RS, Wolpert DM. Prediction precedes control in motor learning. Curr Biol 2003; 13:146-150. This article examines how grip force is modulated as subjects made reaching movements against mechanical loads applied through the hand. Grip force was adjusted within just a few trials to parallel that generated by the load as the subject moved their limb. However, re-establishment of hand trajectory signifying the subject had learned load dynamics required up to 70 trials. This suggests that subjects could predict the consequences of the actions well before they could learn to control their actions.
27. Burdet E, Osu R, Franklin DW, et al. The central nervous system stabilizes unstable dynamics by learning optimal impedence. Nature 2001; 414:446-449.
28. Li CS, Padoa-Schioppa C, Bizzi E. Neuronal correlates of motor performance and motor learning in the primary motor cortex of monkeys adapting to an external force field. Neuron 2001; 30:593-607.
29. Gribble PL, Scott SH. Overlap of internal models in motor cortex for mechanical loads during reaching. Nature 2002; 417:938-941.
30. Krouchev NI, Kalaska JF. Context-dependent anticipation of different task dynamics: rapid recall of appropriate motor skills using visual cues. J Neurophysiol 2003; 89:1165-1175.
31. Fukushi T, Ashe J. Adaptation of arm trajectory during continuous drawing movements in different dynamic environments. Exp Brain Res 2003; 148:95-104.
32. Karniel A, Mussa-Ivaldi FA. Does the motor control system use multiple models and context switching to cope with a variable environment? Exp Brain Res 2002; 143:520-524.
33. Tong C, Wolpert DM, Flanagan JR. Kinematics and dynamics are not represented independently in motor working memory: evidence from an interference study. J Neurosci 2002; 22:1108-1113.
34. Wigmore V, Tong C, Flanagan JR. Visuomotor rotations of varying size and direction compete for a single internal model in motor working memory. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 2002; 28:447-457.
35. Wolpert DM, Kawato M. Multiple paired forward and inverse models for motor control. Neural Networks 1998; 11:1317-1329.
36. Haruno M, Wolpert DM, Kawato M. Mosaic model for sensorimotor learning and control. Neural Comput 2001; 13:2201-2220.
37. Imamizu H, Kuroda T, Miyauchi S, et al. Modular organization of internal models of tools in the human cerebellum. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2003; 100:5461-5466.
38. Shadmehr R, Mussa-Ivaldi FA. Rapid adaptation to coriolis force perturbations of arm trajectory. J Neurosci 1994; 14:3208-3224.
39. Baraduc P, Wolpert DM. Adaptation to a visuomotor shift depends on the starting posture. J Neurophysiol 2002; 88:973-981.
40. Witney AG, Wolpert DM. Spatial representation of predictive motor learning. J Neurophysiol 2003; 89:1837-1843.
41. Shadmehr R, Moussavi ZMK. Spatial generalization from learning dynamics of reaching movements. J Neurosci 2000; 20:7807-7815.
42. Malfait N, Shiller DM, Ostry DJ. Transfer of motor learning across arm configurations. J Neurosci 2002; 22:9656-9660.
43. Singh K, Scott SH. A motor learning strategy reflects neural circuitry for limb control. Nat Neurosci 2003; 6:399-403.
44. Harris CM, Wolpert DM. Signal-dependent noise determines motor planning. Nature 1998; 394:780-784.
45. van Beers RJ, Baraduc P, Wolpert DM. Role of uncertainty in sensorimotor control. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2002; 357:1137-1145.
46. Jones KE, De AF, Hamilton C, Wolpert DM. Sources of signal-dependent noise during isometric force production. J Neurophysiol 2002; 88:1533-1544.
47. Tseng Y, Scholz JP, Schoner G. Goal-equivalent joint coordination in pointing: affect of vision and arm dominance. Motor Control 2002; 6:163-207.
48. Scholz JP, Danion F, Latash ML, Schoner G. Understanding finger coordination through analysis of the structure of force variability. Biol Cybernet 2002; 86:29-39.
49. Latash ML, Danion F, Scholz JF, et al. Approaches to analysis of handwriting as a task of coordinating a redundant motor system. Hum Mov Sci 2003; 22:153-171.
50. Tseng YW, Scholz JP, Schoner G, Hotchkiss L. Effect of accuracy constraint on joint coordination during pointing movements. Exp Brain Res 2003; 149:276-288.
51. Soechting JF, Lacquaniti F. An assessment of the existence of muscle synergies during load perturbations and intentional movements of the human arm. Exp Brain Res 1989; 74:535-548.
52. Wang T, Dordevic GS, Shadmehr R. Learning the dynamics of reaching movements results in the modification of arm impedance and long-latency perturbation responses. Biol Cybernet 2001; 85:437-448.
53. Smith MA, Brandt J, Shadmehr R. Motor disorder in Huntington's disease begins as a dysfunction in error feedback control. Nature 2000; 403:544-549.
54. Bastian AJ, Martin TA, Keating JG, Thach WT. Cerebellar ataxia: abnormal control of interaction torques across multiple joints. J Neurophysiol 1996; 76:492-509.
55. Bastian AJ, Zackowski KM, Thach WT. Cerebellar ataxia: torque deficiency or torque mismatch between joints? J Neurophysiol 2000; 83:3019-3030.
56. Bastian AJ. Cerebellar limb ataxia: abnormal control of self-generated and external forces. Ann NY Acad Sci 2002; 978:16-27. This work illustrates that the cerebellum appears to be important for adjusting motor patterns to consider the mechanics of the limb and task conditions.
57. Manto M, Jacquy J, Hildebrand J, Godaux E. Recovery of hypermetria after a cerebellar stroke occurs as a multistage process. Ann Neurol 1995; 38:437-445.
58. Manto M, Godaux E, Jacquy J. Detection of silent cerebellar lesions by increasing the inertial load of the moving hand. Ann Neurol 1995; 37:344-350.
59. Dancause N, Ptito A, Levin MF. Error correction strategies for motor behavior after unilateral brain damage: short-term motor learning processes. Neuropsychologia 2002; 40:1313-1323.
60. Esparza DY, Archambault PS, Winstein CJ, Levin MF. Hemispheric specialization in the co-ordination of arm and trunk movements during pointing in patients with unilateral brain damage. Exp Brain Res 2003; 148:488-497.
61. Kim SH, Pohl PS, Luchies CW, et al. Ipsilateral deficits of targeted movements after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2003, 84:719-724.