Multiple Grasp-Specific Representations of Tool Dynamics Mediate Skillful Manipulation

Current Biology

Volumn 20, Issue 7, 2010, Pages 618-623

  Ingram, James N ^a   Howard, Ian S ^a   Flanagan, J Randall ^b   Wolpert, Daniel M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

^b QUEEN S UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

SYSNEURO

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOENGINEERING; BIOMECHANICS; COMPUTER INTERFACE; FEEDBACK SYSTEM; HAND STRENGTH; HUMAN; MOTOR PERFORMANCE; PHYSIOLOGY; ROBOTICS;

BIOENGINEERING; BIOMECHANICS; FEEDBACK, SENSORY; HAND STRENGTH; HUMANS; MOTOR SKILLS; ROBOTICS; USER-COMPUTER INTERFACE;

EID: 77950521222     PISSN: 09609822     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2010.01.054     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Gordon A.M., Westling G., Cole K.J., and Johansson R.S. Memory representations underlying motor commands used during manipulation of common and novel objects. J. Neurophysiol. 69 (1993) 1789-1796
2. Flanagan J.R., and Wing A.M. The role of internal models in motion planning and control: Evidence from grip force adjustments during movements of hand-held loads. J. Neurosci. 17 (1997) 1519-1528
3. Lackner J.R., and DiZio P. Motor control and learning in altered dynamic environments. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 15 (2005) 653-659
4. Howard I.S., Ingram J.N., and Wolpert D.M. A modular planar robotic manipulandum with end-point torque control. J. Neurosci. Methods 181 (2009) 199-211
5. Fisher N.I. Statistical Analysis of Circular Data (1995), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
6. Johansson R.S., and Westling G. Roles of glabrous skin receptors and sensorimotor memory in automatic control of precision grip when lifting rougher or more slippery objects. Exp. Brain Res. 56 (1984) 550-564
7. Gordon A.M., Forssberg H., Johansson R.S., and Westling G. Integration of sensory information during the programming of precision grip: Comments on the contributions of size cues. Exp. Brain Res. 85 (1991) 226-229
8. Flanagan J.R., and Beltzner M.A. Independence of perceptual and sensorimotor predictions in the size-weight illusion. Nat. Neurosci. 3 (2000) 737-741
9. Flanagan J.R., King S., Wolpert D.M., and Johansson R.S. Sensorimotor prediction and memory in object manipulation. Can. J. Exp. Psychol. 55 (2001) 87-95
10. Grandy M.S., and Westwood D.A. Opposite perceptual and sensorimotor responses to a size-weight illusion. J. Neurophysiol. 95 (2006) 3887-3892
11. Wolpert D.M., and Flanagan J.R. Motor prediction. Curr. Biol. 11 (2001) R729-R732
12. Shadmehr R., and Mussa-Ivaldi F.A. Adaptive representation of dynamics during learning of a motor task. J. Neurosci. 14 (1994) 3208-3224
13. Gandolfo F., Mussa-Ivaldi F.A., and Bizzi E. Motor learning by field approximation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 93 (1996) 3843-3846
14. Gordon A.M., Forssberg H., Johansson R.S., and Westling G. Visual size cues in the programming of manipulative forces during precision grip. Exp. Brain Res. 83 (1991) 477-482
15. Flanagan J.R., Bittner J.P., and Johansson R.S. Experience can change distinct size-weight priors engaged in lifting objects and judging their weights. Curr. Biol. 18 (2008) 1742-1747
16. Bingham G.P., and Muchisky M.M. Center of mass perception and inertial frames of reference. Percept. Psychophys. 54 (1993) 617-632
17. Jenmalm P., and Johansson R.S. Visual and somatosensory information about object shape control manipulative fingertip forces. J. Neurosci. 17 (1997) 4486-4499
18. Wing A.M., and Lederman S.J. Anticipating load torques produced by voluntary movements. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 24 (1998) 1571-1581
19. Mon-Williams M., and Murray A.H. The size of the visual size cue used for programming manipulative forces during precision grip. Exp. Brain Res. 135 (2000) 405-410
20. Salimi I., Frazier W., Reilmann R., and Gordon A.M. Selective use of visual information signaling objects' center of mass for anticipatory control of manipulative fingertip forces. Exp. Brain Res. 150 (2003) 9-18
21. Cothros N., Wong J., and Gribble P.L. Visual cues signaling object grasp reduce interference in motor learning. J. Neurophysiol. 102 (2009) 2112-2120
22. Wolpert D.M., and Kawato M. Multiple paired forward and inverse models for motor control. Neural Netw. 11 (1998) 1317-1329
23. Haruno M., Wolpert D.M., and Kawato M. Mosaic model for sensorimotor learning and control. Neural Comput. 13 (2001) 2201-2220
24. Lee J.Y., and Schweighofer N. Dual adaptation supports a parallel architecture of motor memory. J. Neurosci. 29 (2009) 10396-10404
25. Thoroughman K.A., and Shadmehr R. Learning of action through adaptive combination of motor primitives. Nature 407 (2000) 742-747
26. Malfait N., Shiller D.M., and Ostry D.J. Transfer of motor learning across arm configurations. J. Neurosci. 22 (2002) 9656-9660
27. Tong C., Wolpert D.M., and Flanagan J.R. Kinematics and dynamics are not represented independently in motor working memory: Evidence from an interference study. J. Neurosci. 22 (2002) 1108-1113
28. Caithness G., Osu R., Bays P., Chase H., Klassen J., Kawato M., Wolpert D.M., and Flanagan J.R. Failure to consolidate the consolidation theory of learning for sensorimotor adaptation tasks. J. Neurosci. 24 (2004) 8662-8671
29. Malfait N., Gribble P.L., and Ostry D.J. Generalization of motor learning based on multiple field exposures and local adaptation. J. Neurophysiol. 93 (2005) 3327-3338
30. Cothros N., Wong J.D., and Gribble P.L. Are there distinct neural representations of object and limb dynamics?. Exp. Brain Res. 173 (2006) 689-697
31. Berniker M., and Kording K. Estimating the sources of motor errors for adaptation and generalization. Nat. Neurosci. 11 (2008) 1454-1461
32. Kluzik J., Diedrichsen J., Shadmehr R., and Bastian A.J. Reach adaptation: What determines whether we learn an internal model of the tool or adapt the model of our arm?. J. Neurophysiol. 100 (2008) 1455-1464
33. Marr D., and Nishihara H.K. Representation and recognition of the spatial organization of three-dimensional shapes. Proc. R Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 200 (1978) 269-294
34. Ullman S. Three-dimensional object recognition based on the combination of views. Cognition 67 (1998) 21-44
35. Hayward W.G. After the viewpoint debate: Where next in object recognition?. Trends Cogn. Sci. 7 (2003) 425-427
36. Tarr M.J., and Pinker S. Mental rotation and orientation-dependence in shape recognition. Cognit. Psychol. 21 (1989) 233-282
37. Wallis G., and Bülthoff H. Learning to recognize objects. Trends Cogn. Sci. 3 (1999) 22-31