| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 ATR Computational Neuroscience Laboratories, 2-2-2 Hikaridai, Keihanna Science City, Kyoto, 619-0288, Japan School of Kinesiology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C. V5A 1S6, Canada
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract IntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
(Received 12 May 2005;
accepted after revision 15 June 2005;
first published online 16 June 2005)
Corresponding author T.E. Milner: School of Kinesiology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C. V5A 1S6, Canada. Email: tmilner{at}sfu.ca
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
The cerebellum and primary motor cortex appear to be the regions of the brain most directly implicated in adaptation to novel dynamics. In particular, the ipsilateral cerebellum shows changes in regional cerebral blood flow during adaptation to novel dynamics, that appear to be related to changes in motor error (Nezafat et al. 2001). Furthermore, individuals with cerebellar atrophy are less able to adapt to novel dynamics than control subjects (Maschke et al. 2004), and individuals with cerebellar lesions do not update motor commands based on past error (Smith & Shadmehr, 2005) unlike control subjects (Thoroughman & Shadmehr, 2000; Scheidt et al. 2001; Donchin et al. 2003). Evidence for involvement of primary motor cortex is based primarily on single unit recordings from non-human primates which identified a class of neurones that shifted their preferred direction during exposure to novel dynamics and retained this shift during a subsequent washout period with the original dynamics (Li et al. 2001). However, there are strong projections from the cerebellum to primary motor cortex so it is possible that the changes in motor cortex are the consequence of parallel changes in cerebellum. At the molecular level, NMDA receptors and GABAergic inhibition have been implicated in the acquisition of new motor memories (Donchin et al. 2002), although their localization was not possible.
In the case of adaptation to novel dynamics, where movements are mechanically stable, changes in muscle activation patterns closely mirror the adaptive changes in joint torques required to produce the necessary compensatory forces. Nonetheless, there is excess agonist–antagonist muscle cocontraction, particularly in the early stages of learning. As adaptation progresses, this cocontraction decreases (Thoroughman & Shadmehr, 1999; Osu et al. 2002; Franklin et al. 2003a). It would appear that the central nervous system initially uses cocontraction to increase resistance to the disturbing effects of the novel dynamics, and reduces cocontraction as knowledge of the dynamics improves. Improvement in performance during adaptation to novel dynamics is an exponential process (Thoroughman & Shadmehr, 1999; Osu et al. 2003; Franklin et al. 2003a), where the largest increment occurs between the first and second trial. The mechanisms responsible for this dramatic improvement in performance have yet to be examined in detail. We hypothesized that it involved a change in feedforward motor commands to both increase in the neuromuscular impedance of the arm and exert a force that countered the perturbing force of the altered environmental dynamics. To demonstrate this we devised a paradigm in which we intermittently exposed subjects to novel dynamics for three trials at a time so as to focus on the early changes to motor commands while preventing consolidation of these changes.
Two paradigms have been introduced to explore the process of internal dynamics model formation. One paradigm involves reverting to the dynamics that existed prior to adaptation and observing the after effects of the adaptation (Shadmehr & Mussa-Ivaldi, 1994). The other paradigm involves mechanically constraining the movement path to what is presumed to be the desired path and measuring the force generated at the point of interaction between the limb and the constraint (Scheidt et al. 2000). If adaptation occurred primarily by increasing limb mechanical impedance through cocontraction of antagonistic muscle groups, then both after effects and constraint forces should be small. We employed both of these paradigms, but also recorded the electromyogram (EMG) of relevant arm muscles, which provides a more direct measure of adaptation in the control signal. Because of the stochastic nature of processes that contribute to the EMG, an accurate representation of the control signal can only be obtained by averaging over many repetitions of the same condition. This would normally present a problem in investigating adaptive changes that are responsible for the reduction in error occurring during the first few movements after the dynamics of a task change, since averaging successive trials precludes being able to detect successive changes in command signals. By intermittently exposing subjects to the novel dynamics for several trials so that consolidation did not occur, we were able to average the EMG over many trials to reduce its variance. We addressed the questions of how kinematic error is reduced from one trial to the next, how feedback commands are transformed into feedforward commands, and the relative roles of increased mechanical impedance (stiffness) and internal model formation.
|
Methods |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Protocol
Subjects sat in a chair with a shoulder harness to constrain trunk motion. The forearm and wrist were stabilized by a thermoplastic splint rigidly attached to the handle of the parallel-link direct-drive air and magnet floating manipulandum (PFM). Details of its design and operation have been previously described (Gomi & Kawato, 1996, 1997). The chair's height was adjusted such that the arm moved in the horizontal plane. A circular cursor 0.5 cm in diameter, representing the current hand position, was initially positioned in a 2.5 cm start circle, the centre of which was located 0.31 m directly in front of the shoulder. The cursor, as well as the start and target circles were projected onto an opaque horizontal surface which hid the arm from the subjects' view. The cursor, start and target circles were visible throughout all trials.
Subjects made horizontal point-to-point movements, reaching 0.25 m directly forward to a 2.5 cm diameter target circle. This line defined the y-axis of the coordinate system (Fig. 1). The prescribed movement time of 600 ms was indicated by a series of brief tones that provided synchronizing signals to initiate and terminate the movement. No force acted on the hand until after movement had been initiated, nor was any force applied by the PFM as subjects moved back to the start position prior to commencement of the subsequent trial. The final position was deemed OK if the movement ended in the target circle. The duration was deemed OK if it was within ±100 ms of the prescribed time. Subjects were instructed that their goal was to produce movements that met the OK criteria. Feedback of movement duration (OK, LONG, or SHORT) and final hand position (OK or OUT) were provided as incentives for subjects to improve performance, although all trials were included in the data analysis. Each trial was self-initiated by moving the cursor into the start circle, enabling subjects to rest between trials, if desired. Force and position data were recorded at 500 Hz, beginning 150 ms prior to movement onset for 1500 ms.
|
Subjects participated in two experiments in which they were instructed to adapt to a novel dynamic environment. The protocol of Experiment 1 was designed to prevent subjects from completely adapting to the environment by limiting exposure to sets of three sequential trials and dispersing the sets somewhat randomly throughout the training session. During Experiment 2, exposure to the novel dynamics environment was continuous to permit complete adaptation. The objective of Experiment 2 was to characterize kinematic error, joint torque and muscle activation patterns after complete adaptation, relative to a prior null field condition. For four of the subjects, Experiment 2 began several minutes after completion of Experiment 1. For the other four subjects, Experiment 2 was conducted one to four months after Experiment 1.
In Experiment 1, subjects performed 22–23 consecutive movements in a null field (NF), followed by 27–28 sets of three trials in a velocity-dependent force field (VF1, VF2, VF3), each separated by a random number of between four and eight NF trials. The force in the VF was given by:
|
| (1) |
B 15 N s m–1, dependent on the subject's capacity to adapt and where F is the force in N and V is the velocity in m/s. The effect of the force field is schematically illustrated in Fig. 1. It produced a force which assisted motion as well as perturbing the hand to the right. The rightward perturbation was the more noticeable of the two effects, probably because the mechanical impedance of the extended arm is considerably greater in the y direction than the x direction (Milner, 2002). On 10 randomly selected trials, VF3 was replaced by a catch trial, which took the form either of the NF or of a virtual constraint. The virtual constraint (or mechanical channel) consisted of an elastic force applied to the hand whenever it deviated to the right or left of the straight line joining the centres of the start and target zones. The stiffness of the channel was 40 N cm–1. In Experiment 2, subjects performed 20 consecutive NF movements followed by 100 consecutive VF movements during which they completely adapted to the VF. Analysis
Performance was characterized in terms of two kinematic parameters: the maximum lateral deviation from the straight line joining the movement start and target points, and the absolute hand path error, i.e. the area enclosed by the straight line and the hand path. The changes in elbow and shoulder torques needed to adapt to the VF were determined by comparing the torques for NF movements and for VF movements during adaptation. They were calculated as described in Franklin et al. (2003a). Muscle activity was quantified in terms of the root-mean-squared (rms) EMG computed over two intervals: –100 ms to 100 ms with respect to movement onset, which was considered to include only feedforward commands to muscles (feedforward interval), and 100–600 ms after movement onset, which could also include reflex EMG and voluntary muscle activity associated with on-line error correction (feedback interval). The 100 ms window following movement onset provided a conservative estimate of the earliest latency at which reflex EMG would appear, based on comparison of the EMG on the first trial in the VF and the NF trial which immediately preceded it (described in the Results). Muscle activity during NF trials was used as the reference for quantifying changes during VF trials. For experiment 1, the mean rms EMG in NF trials, which immediately preceded VF1 trials, was used as the reference. The rms EMG in NF and VF trials was normalized by dividing by the corresponding NF reference EMG prior to statistical analysis. This was done separately for the early and late EMG intervals of each muscle of each subject. Thus, the normalized rms EMG represents how much greater the muscle activity was during movements in the VF compared to the NF.
Changes in performance variables and normalized rms EMG between the beginning and end of an experiment were tested for statistical significance by ANOVA with subjects as a random factor. Changes in performance variables and normalized rms EMG between conditions were tested for statistical significance by means of paired t tests. Differences were considered to be statistically significant whenever P < 0.05.
Analysis of mechanical channel trials included calculation of the magnitude and time of occurrence of the peak force and the total force impulse exerted against the channel. The five channel trials were compared to the preceding NF trials and to the final five of the 100 VF adaptation trials using paired t tests, as described above.
|
Results |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
On the first VF trial of Experiment 1, the hand was pushed forward and to the right, beginning about 80 ms after the onset of movement, resulting in shoulder and elbow extension relative to the previous NF trial (Fig. 2). The first change in muscle activity occurred about 40 ms later in the pectoralis, biceps and brachioradialis muscles, i.e. the muscles that would have been stretched relative to their length on the previous NF trial. This indicates that the latency of any reflex EMG was greater than 100 ms from movement onset. In fact, reflex latency should be referenced to perturbation onset, which occurred about 80 ms after movement onset. We chose to set the end of the feedforward interval for EMG at 100 ms after movement onset, which represented an effective reflex latency of 20 ms and thereby excluded the possibility of reflex contribution. This was actually more conservative than necessary because responses at monosynaptic latencies were not observed due to the very gradual nature of the displacement. Lee & Tatton (1982) demonstrated that very slow displacements evoke little or no short-latency (monosynaptic) reflex response. The activity of the three antagonist muscles, which were shortening, increased approximately 130 ms later (250 ms after onset of movement).
|
The process of gradual adaptation over 100 consecutive VF trials during Experiment 2 is illustrated in Figs 2 and 3. This adaptation was recorded after subjects had completed Experiment 1 so they were no longer naive to the characteristics of the VF. The subject whose data is shown in the figures completed Experiment 1 a month prior to Experiment 2 and did not participate in any experiments in the interim. The principal purpose of Experiment 2 was to determine the final patterns of muscle activation and to relate them to changes in joint torque in comparison to NF movements preceding adaptation. This establishes a baseline against which to gauge the magnitude of changes taking place during the initial stages of adaptation, recorded in Experiment 1. Complete adaptation involved a gradual modification of the torque profiles and straightening of the hand path. The final elbow torque profile was similar in shape to that of NF movements, but biased more in the flexor direction. Thus, the elbow extensor torque early in the movement decreased and the elbow flexor torque later in the movement increased relative to NF movements (Fig. 3). The final shoulder torque profile was more fundamentally altered, with flexor torque being exerted for the entire duration of the movement rather than switching from flexor torque in the first half of the movement to extensor torque in the second half. This adaptation required a marked increase in the total shoulder flexor torque.
|
|
Early adaptation (Experiment 1)
The trial-by-trial change in kinematic error and muscle activity was determined for the first three movements in the VF to investigate the early stage of adaptation to the novel dynamics in Experiment 1. On the first VF trial, the absolute hand path error increased by an average of 75 cm2 (P < 0.0001), from a mean of 7.7 cm2 (S.D. 4.2) on the preceding NF trial to 83 cm2 (S.D. 21). The maximum deviation increased by an average of 6.7 cm (P < 0.0001), from a mean of 0.026 cm (S.D. 0.73) to 6.7 cm (S.D. 1.7). On the second VF trial, both absolute hand path error and maximum deviation were reduced, by an average of 51 cm2 (P= 0.0005) and 3.9 cm (P= 0.0018), respectively. The absolute hand path error was further reduced on the third VF trial, by an average of 12 cm2 (P= 0.035), but the maximum deviation did not change significantly (P= 0.24).
There was no significant change in the activation of any muscle in the feedforward interval on the first VF trial compared to the preceding NF trial (P > 0.14). However, all muscles increased their activation in the feedback interval. Relative to the normalized rms EMG on NF trials, the increase was 150% for the pectoralis (P= 0.0031), 220% for the posterior deltoid (P= 0.01), 270% for the biceps (P= 0.0013), 140% for the triceps longus (P= 0.017), 230% for the brachioradialis (P= 0.0049) and 160% for the triceps lateralis (P= 0.011). On the second VF trial, muscle activity in the feedforward interval increased for all muscles, relative to the first VF trial. Expressed relative to activation on NF trials, the increase was 54% for the pectoralis (P= 0.020), 48% for the posterior deltoid (P= 0.0009), 65% for the biceps (P= 0.018), 61% for the triceps longus (P= 0.014), 38% for the brachioradialis (P= 0.012) and 44% for the triceps lateralis (P= 0.13). There was no significant increase in activity in the feedback interval compared to the first VF trial (P > 0.14) for any muscle except the triceps longus. In the case of the triceps longus, activity increased by an additional 93% relative to NF levels (P= 0.018). On the third VF trial, the activity of the pectoralis increased by an additional 50% (P= 0.022) and that of the triceps lateralis increased by an additional 51% (P= 0.018) in the feedforward interval compared to the second VF trial. However, there was no significant change in the activation of any of the other muscles (P > 0.11) in the feedforward interval. There was no significant change in activity of any muscle in the feedback interval on the third VF trial compared to the second VF trial (P > 0.24).
Intermittent presentation of VF (Experiment 1)
Surface EMG recorded from single trials during rapid adaptation to novel dynamics may not accurately reflect changes in motor commands. This is because the surface EMG is a stochastic representation of motor commands. On any given trial, relatively small changes in the timing and/or location of activated motor units can have a marked effect on the amplitude of the recorded signal. If the stochastic signal could be averaged across many repetitions of the same event, then the mean value would more accurately represent the true motor command. We did this by repeated presentations of the VF for sets of three consecutive trials, interrupted by a randomly selected number of 4–8 NF trials in Experiment 1. The mean and standard deviation of the absolute hand path error for the repeated sets of VF trials are shown in Fig. 5. The data for maximum deviation are not plotted because they are very similar.
|
|
|
The average changes in muscle activation for the VF sets are shown in Fig. 8. There was no significant difference in the normalized rms EMG of any muscle between preceding NF trials and VF1 trials for the feedforward interval (P > 0.9). However, the perturbation produced by the VF resulted in a significant increase in the normalized rms EMG of all muscles during the feedback interval. Averaged across subjects, the increases were 73% for the pectoralis, 55% for the posterior deltoid, 110% for the biceps, 49% for the triceps longus, 49% for the brachioradialis and 60% for the triceps lateralis.
|
Increased impedance versus change in net force (Experiment 1)
The general increase in feedforward muscle activity indicated that subjects stiffened the arm at the onset of VF2 and VF3 trials compared to the preceding NF trial. However, it is not possible to infer the torque produced by each muscle from its EMG. Therefore, to test whether subjects were compensating for the force field only by increasing the stiffness of the arm or by also generating a net counteracting force, VF3 trials were occasionally replaced by NF trials, which served as catch trials to test for after effects of force compensation. Although catch trials could have replaced VF2 trials, we felt that subjects would be less likely to change their motor commands on catch trials if these were preceded by two VF trials rather than by only one VF trial. Catch trials were introduced in five VF sets chosen randomly. To verify that the feedforward command was not altered by the catch trial we examined the change in rms EMG for the feedforward interval compared to the preceding VF2 trial. For five out of six muscles the change was not significantly different from zero (P > 0.18), although for the triceps longus there was an increase of 26% (P= 0.048). The absolute hand path error and the maximum deviation on these catch trials were significantly greater than on the five NF trials which immediately preceded the VF sequences of the catch trials (Fig. 9). The mean of the hand path error across subjects, taking into account error direction, was 33 cm2 to the left on catch trials, compared to 7 cm2 to left for the NF trials that preceded the VF sequences (P < 0.0001). The mean of the maximum deviation across subjects was 2.0 cm to the left for catch trials compared to 0.5 cm to the left for the NF trials (P= 0.0002). The larger deviation to the left on catch trials indicates that subjects exerted additional force to the left in anticipation of the expected rightward perturbation by the force field. Note that activation of the triceps longus would counteract leftward deviation of the hand, so greater activation of the triceps longus on catch trials than on VF2 trials does not diminish the significance of the result.
|
Latent effects of intermittent perturbation (Experiment 1)
As noted above, we found that subjects increased muscle cocontraction on NF trials interposed between intermittent VF sets compared to NF trials that preceded the first VF set. This cocontraction did not appear to be significantly modified over time. In comparing the first five and last five NF trials that preceded VF sets, we found no significant difference in the normalized rms EMG for any muscle in either the feedforward interval (P > 0.18 for monoarticular muscles and P > 0.92 for biarticular muscles) or the feedback interval (P > 0.1). Furthermore, the four subjects who began Experiment 2 several minutes after completing Experiment 1 retained the elevated cocontraction during the 20 NF trials that preceded the onset of VF trials in Experiment 2. The average rectified, smoothed EMG profiles (similar to Fig. 6) of the final five NF trials that preceded VF sets in Experiment 1 were compared with those of the final five NF trials at the start of Experiment 2. For none of the four subjects was there any clear indication of a reduction in EMG. Thus, although induction of cocontraction during adaptation is a rapid process, its extinction occurs very slowly.
The data in Fig. 5 suggest that kinematic error on VF2 trials may have been gradually reduced over time. Although the slope (excluding the first VF set) was not significantly different from zero for either hand path error (P= 0.081) or maximum deviation (P= 0.18), the mean hand path error for trials in the second half of the VF sets was 3.8 cm2 less (P= 0.011), and mean maximum deviation was 0.33 cm less (P= 0.019) than for trials in the first half. This represents about a 10% change relative to the error on the first VF2 trial. In the case of VF1 and VF3 trials, there were no significant differences between trials in the first and second half of the VF sets (P > 0.4). We again compared average smoothed EMG profiles of VF2 trials for early and late VF sets. Although there were differences in the EMG profiles for some subjects, they were quite varied. Comparison of the normalized rms EMG between VF2 trials in early and late sets showed no statistical difference. Furthermore, differences in EMG profiles were only found in the feedback interval.
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Final adapted state
The levels of muscle activation associated with the final adapted state were consistent with the change in shoulder and elbow torque profiles, although there was no decrease in the activity of elbow extensor muscles even though the net elbow extensor torque was markedly reduced in the VF compared to the NF. This suggests that subjects performed the task with some agonist/antagonist cocontraction of elbow muscles even after complete adaptation. We have recently shown that the central nervous system controls muscles to maintain a degree of stability which is approximately equal to the stability achieved during NF movements (Franklin et al. 2004), and have also shown that cocontraction is required to provide the damping necessary for stability in a force field which assists movement in proportion to velocity (Milner, 2004). Although the VF employed in the present study was not purely assistive in nature, it did contribute negatively to damping in the y direction. Therefore, muscle cocontraction would have been necessary to achieve similar overall stability to that of movements in the NF at the target position. We previously found cocontraction of elbow and biarticular muscles after adaptation to a velocity-dependent force field with negative damping (Milner, 2004), but little or no cocontraction after adaptation to a velocity-dependent force field with positive damping (Franklin et al. 2003a). Therefore, we can conclude that all of the observed cocontraction in this study was used to increase damping of the arm to achieve the necessary stability.
Rationale and validity of protocol
The question of how feedforward commands are modified to adapt to novel mechanics has generally been addressed by having subjects adapt over many trials and averaging the EMG over blocks of trials at different points as learning progresses (Thoroughman & Shadmehr, 1999). This is a reasonable approach, which can be considered to have high validity if the learning rate is relatively slow, i.e. if performance is not changing rapidly. However, a number of studies have shown that adaptation to novel mechanical environments occurs in an exponential fashion (Thoroughman & Shadmehr, 1999; Osu et al. 2003; Franklin et al. 2003a), with errors being most rapidly reduced during the first few trials as subjects dramatically alter their patterns of muscle activation (Thoroughman & Shadmehr, 1999; Osu et al. 2003; Franklin et al. 2003a). Having to average the EMG over several successive trials would preclude being able to isolate the processes involved in generating the initial feedforward response to a change in the dynamics of the environment, i.e. the change in the feedforward command between the first and second trials. We first observed the process of adaptation to three trials in a novel velocity-dependent force field for naive subjects. To confirm that our observations were reliable and repeatable, we then repeatedly activated the force field for several trials in succession at random intervals during null field trials. This allowed us to average the surface EMG to obtain a more statistically reliable representation of the change in muscle activation from one trial to the next during the early stage of adaptation to the force field.
Latent effects of intermittent perturbation
One unanticipated effect of intermittently presenting sets of VF trials was an increase in cocontraction during the intervening NF trials. As a result of this cocontraction, the muscles were in a different mechanical state and the 
-motoneurones were in a different state of excitability during the second and subsequent VF sets than during the first VF set. The principal effect of the subjects' change in strategy between the first and second VF sets was that the error on VF1 trials was reduced and there was a smaller percentage improvement in performance on VF2 trials compared to the first VF set. This was reflected in the amount by which muscle activation changed, as well. Therefore, the results from the repeated VF sets represent an attenuation of what actually occurs between the first and second trials. It is noteworthy that this increased cocontraction was not noticeably reduced over a set of 20 NF trials for the four subjects who performed Experiment 2 several minutes after completing Experiment 1. This reinforces previous observations (Thoroughman & Shadmehr, 1999; Franklin et al. 2003a) that the decay of excess muscle activation is a very gradual process.
Another unexpected effect was the reduction in error on VF2 trials of later VF sets compared to earlier sets. Since differences in EMG were only found in the feedback interval it is more likely that the reduction in error was due to modified reflex responses or more effective corrective responses than more effective anticipatory (feedforward) compensation for the force field. This also suggests that an accurate internal model of the environmental dynamics cannot be formed by intermittent exposure, since there was no change in feedforward muscle activity of VF2 trials with intermittent repetition.
Initial adaptation by increased impedance and use of an internal model
There was a general increase in the activity of all muscles during the feedback interval on VF1 trials compared to NF trials. In the muscles stretched by the perturbation, this can be attributed to long-latency stretch reflexes. The increased activity of their antagonists occurred considerably later (
120 ms) and may have represented rapid voluntary muscle activation to increase the stiffness of the arm, or a non-specific triggered response (Crago et al. 1976) that would limit the effect of the perturbation until the CNS was able to take corrective action.
The generalized feedforward or anticipatory increase in activity of all muscles observed on VF2 trials relative to VF1 trials indicates that an increase in viscoelastic impedance was a primary adaptive response. The rapid establishment of a cocontraction level suggests that the central nervous system quickly judges how much viscoelastic impedance is necessary to reduce kinematic error sufficiently for efficient learning of an internal model (Franklin et al. 2003a; Milner, 2004). Our recent studies suggest that cocontraction does not increase for more than one or two trials following initial exposure to novel dynamics. From that point on it tends to decrease. As the dynamics of the task are learned, the margin of stability conferred by cocontraction is reduced (Franklin et al. 2003a; Milner, 2004).
Muscle activation during the feedback interval remained as high on VF2 trials as on VF1 trials, despite considerable reduction in kinematic error. In the case of the triceps longus, it even increased. This suggests that the duration of the anticipatory cocontraction extended well into the feedback interval and that biarticular muscles were used to increase the stiffness of the arm on VF2 trials. The activity of the biceps did not increase in the feedback interval even though less shoulder and elbow flexor torque was required for corrective action because of reduced hand path deviation. Instead, flexor torque was reduced by an increase in triceps longus activity while biceps activity remained unchanged thereby increasing the stiffness of the arm. It is likely that biceps motoneurones received greater synaptic input from descending commands on VF2 trials than VF1 trials. However, this would have been offset by reduced synaptic input from muscle spindles due to the smaller perturbation. At the same time, the descending synaptic input to the triceps longus would have been enhanced due to a decrease in reciprocal inhibition.
In addition to the generalized feedforward cocontraction on VF2 trials, which served to increase the viscoelastic impedance of the arm, subjects began to exert an anticipatory lateral force to counteract the disturbance produced by the VF. The hand path deviations observed when VF3 trials were replaced by NF catch trials, and the lateral forces measured on channel trials indicate that by the third trial subjects were using a crude internal model of the force field. Based on the similarity of the EMG on VF2 and VF3 trials, we can conclude that the internal model was adopted between VF1 and VF2 trials. In the case of channel trials which replaced VF3 trials, our analysis showed that the peak lateral force was greater than that applied to the manipulandum after complete adaptation. However, the lateral force impulse was smaller. This indicates that initial compensation for the force field consisted of the application of a lateral force which was larger and briefer than necessary. This is corroborated by the relatively large hand path deviation which still existed on VF3 trials. This study cannot distinguish between the possibility that this process represents the formation of a new internal model or the selection of some previously learned response that is subsequently refined (Wolpert & Kawato, 1998). However, we have elaborated a set of principles for motor learning that would allow internal model formation to begin on the second trial in a novel mechanical environment (Burdet et al. 2004).
In summary, it appears that the central nervous system is able to glean critical information about the nature of the disturbing force during a relatively brief period of exposure, e.g. a single movement, in a novel mechanical environment, as has also been suggested by Scheidt et al. (2001). In addition to generalized cocontraction, which increases the viscoelastic impedance of the limb, there is an anticipatory increase in the activation of muscles needed to counteract the disturbing force when the second movement is attempted. This contemporaneous adaptation of limb impedance and formation of an internal dynamics model has been suggested by the results of several recent studies (Takahashi et al. 2001; Franklin et al. 2003a; Osu et al. 2003). We are currently investigating how sensory information generated by the initial disturbance is used to initiate the formation of an internal dynamics model of the novel environment.
|
References |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Brashers-Krug T, Shadmehr R & Bizzi E (1996). Consolidation in human motor memory. Nature 382, 252–255.[CrossRef][Medline]
Burdet E, Franklin DW, Osu R, Tee KP, Kawato M & Milner TE (2004). How are internal models of unstable tasks formed? Proceedings of the IEEE EMBS 26th Annual International Conference 6, 4491–4496.
Conditt MA, Gandolfo F & Mussa-Ivaldi FA (1997). The motor system does not learn the dynamics of the arm by rote memorization of past experience. JNeurophysiol 78, 554–560.
Crago PE, Houk JC & Hasan Z (1976). Regulatory actions of human stretch reflex. JNeurophysiol 39, 925–935.
Donchin O, Francis JT & Shadmehr R (2003). Quantifying generalization from trial-by-trial behavior of adaptive systems that learn with basis functions: theory and experiments in human motor control. JNeurosci 23, 9032–9045.
Donchin O, Sawaki L, Madupu G, Cohen LG & Shadmehr R (2002). Mechanisms influencing acquisition and recall of motor memories. JNeurophysiol 88, 2114–2123.
Franklin DW, Osu R, Burdet E, Kawato M & Milner TE (2003a). Adaptation to stable and unstable dynamics achieved by combined impedance control and inverse dynamics model. JNeurophysiol 90, 3270–3282.
Franklin DW, Osu R, Burdet E, Kawato M & Milner TE (2003b). Functional significance of stiffness in adaptation of multijoint arm movements to stable and unstable environments. Exp Brain Res 151, 145–157.[CrossRef][Medline]
Franklin DW, So U, Kawato M & Milner TE (2004). Impedance control balances stability with metabolically costly muscle activation. JNeurophysiol 92, 3097–3105.
Gomi H & Kawato M (1996). Equilibrium-point control hypothesis examined by measured arm stiffness during multijoint movement. Science 272, 117–120.[Abstract]
Gomi H & Kawato M (1997). Human arm stiffness and equilibrium-point trajectory during multi-joint movement. Biol Cybern 76, 163–171.[CrossRef][Medline]
Goodbody SJ & Wolpert DM (1998). Temporal and amplitude generalization in motor learning. JNeurophysiol 79, 1825–1838.
Krakauer JW, Ghilardi MF & Ghez C (1999). Independent learning of internal models for kinematic and dynamic control of reaching. Nat Neurosci 2, 1026–1031.[CrossRef][Medline]
Lackner JR & Dizio P (1994). Rapid adaptation to Coriolis force perturbations of arm trajectory. JNeurophysiol 72, 299–313.
Lee RG & Tatton WG (1982). Long latency reflexes to imposed displacements of the human wrist: dependence on duration of movement. Exp Brain Res 45, 207–216.[Medline]
Li CS, Padoa-Schioppa C & Bizzi E (2001). Neuronal correlates of motor performance and motor learning in the primary motor cortex of monkeys adapting to an external force field. Neuron 30, 593–607.[CrossRef][Medline]
Maschke M, Gomez CM, Ebner TJ & Konczak J (2004). Hereditary cerebellar ataxia progressively impairs force adaptation during goal-directed arm movements. JNeurophysiol 91, 230–238.
Milner TE (2002). Contribution of geometry and joint stiffness to mechanical stability of the human arm. Exp Brain Res 143, 515–519.[CrossRef][Medline]
Milner TE (2004). Accuracy of internal dynamics models in limb movements depends on stability. Exp Brain Res 159, 172–184.[CrossRef][Medline]
Nezafat R, Shadmehr R & Holcomb HH (2001). Long-term adaptation to dynamics of reaching movements: a PET study. Exp Brain Res 140, 66–76.[CrossRef][Medline]
Osu R, Burdet E, Franklin DW, Milner TE & Kawato M (2003). Different mechanisms involved in adaptation to stable and unstable dynamics. JNeurophysiol 90, 3255–3269.
Osu R, Franklin DW, Kato H, Gomi H, Domen K, Yoshioka T & Kawato M (2002). Short- and long-term changes in joint co-contraction associated with motor learning as revealed from surface EMG. JNeurophysiol 88, 991–1004.
Scheidt RA, Dingwell JB & Mussa-Ivaldi FA (2001). Learning to move amid uncertainty. JNeurophysiol 86, 971–985.
Scheidt RA, Reinkensmeyer DJ, Conditt MA, Rymer WZ & Mussa-Ivaldi FA (2000). Persistence of motor adaptation during constrained, multi-joint, arm movements. JNeurophysiol 84, 853–862.
Shadmehr R & Mussa-Ivaldi FA (1994). Adaptive representation of dynamics during learning of a motor task. JNeurosci 14, 3208–3224.[Abstract]
Smith MA & Shadmehr R (2005). Intact ability to learn internal models of arm dynamics in Huntington's disease but not cerebellar degeneration. JNeurophysiol 93, 2809–2821.
Takahashi CD, Scheidt RA & Reinkensmeyer DJ (2001). Impedance control and internal model formation when reaching in a randomly varying dynamical environment. JNeurophysiol 86, 1047–1051.
Thoroughman KA & Shadmehr R (1999). Electromyographic correlates of learning an internal model of reaching movements. JNeurosci 19, 8573–8588.
Thoroughman KA & Shadmehr R (2000). Learning of action through adaptive combination of motor primitives. Nature 407, 742–747.[CrossRef][Medline]
Wolpert DM & Kawato M (1998). Multiple paired forward and inverse models for motor control. Neural Netw 11, 1317–1329.[CrossRef][Medline]
|
Acknowledgements |
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  X. Liu and R. A. Scheidt Contributions of Online Visual Feedback to the Learning and Generalization of Novel Finger Coordination Patterns J Neurophysiol, May 1, 2008; 99(5): 2546 - 2557. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. R. Hinder and T. E. Milner Rapid Adaptation to Scaled Changes of the Mechanical Environment J Neurophysiol, November 1, 2007; 98(5): 3072 - 3080. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. W. Franklin, G. Liaw, T. E. Milner, R. Osu, E. Burdet, and M. Kawato Endpoint Stiffness of the Arm Is Directionally Tuned to Instability in the Environment J. Neurosci., July 18, 2007; 27(29): 7705 - 7716. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. M. Herter, I. Kurtzer, D. W. Cabel, K. A. Haunts, and S. H. Scott Characterization of Torque-Related Activity in Primary Motor Cortex During a Multijoint Postural Task J Neurophysiol, April 1, 2007; 97(4): 2887 - 2899. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. Tunik, P. J. Schmitt, and S. T. Grafton BOLD Coherence Reveals Segregated Functional Neural Interactions When Adapting to Distinct Torque Perturbations J Neurophysiol, March 1, 2007; 97(3): 2107 - 2120. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. E. Milner and M. R. Hinder Position Information But Not Force Information Is Used in Adapting to Changes in Environmental Dynamics J Neurophysiol, August 1, 2006; 96(2): 526 - 534. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
