Halving and doubling isometric force: Evidence for a decelerating psychophysical function consistent with an equilibrium-point model of motor control

Several previous investigations have measured accelerating psychophysical functions for perceived force with exponents of about 1.7. Two halving and doubling experiments presented here imply a psychophysical function for perceived force with an exponent between 0.6 and 0.8. That is, more than a doubling of force was needed to double the sensation, and similarly for halving. In the first experiment, subjects squeezed rigid instrumented cylinders between the thumb and first two fingers of each hand. They generated and released a reference force with one hand, and then squeezed the opposite hand to produce a sensation magnitude equal to, twice that, or half that of the reference. An analysis using a model that accounted for compression bias yielded average psychophysical functions with exponents of 0.58 and 0.59 (nondominant and dominant hands, respectively). The second experiment was an attempt to replicate earlier results and to reconcile them with the first experiment by using a paradigm duplicated from a previous study. Subjects in the second experiment made unilateral halving and doubling judgments of handgrip while squeezing a hand dynamometer. Again, the halving and doubling judgments yielded decelerating functions with exponents of 0.75 and 0.80 (nondominant and dominant hands, respectively). Even though the results of the first two experiments contradict earlier investigations, they can be explained by an equilibrium model of motor control assuming that subjects halve and double the central motor command rather than the sensation of force. The force is simply the result of the mechanical equilibrium established between the load and the compliant effector (the hand). The predicted relationship between the motor command judgments, the compliance of the hand, and the resultant forces was confirmed in a third experiment in which the mechanical compliance of the three-finger pinch was measured by using a pneumatic manipulandum to apply force perturbations in a “do-notintervene” paradigm. The measured compliance characteristic was accelerating, just as predicted by the model, in order to produce a decelerating psychophysical function for “perceived force.” In this experiment, then, judgments of perceived force appear to be judgments of the central motor command.

[1]  M. Latash Control of human movement , 1993 .

[2]  P. Matthews Where does Sherrington's "muscular sense" originate? Muscles, joints, corollary discharges? , 1982, Annual review of neuroscience.

[3]  C. L. Doren Individual differences in perceived pinch force and bite force , 1993 .

[4]  S. S. Stevens,et al.  Regression effect in psychophysical judgment , 1966 .

[5]  D. Burke,et al.  Does the nervous system depend on kinesthetic information to control natural limb movements , 1992 .

[6]  C L Van Doren Cross-modality matches of finger span and line length. , 1995, Perception & psychophysics.

[7]  P. Roland,et al.  A quantitative analysis of sensations of tension and of kinaesthesia in man. Evidence for a peripherally originating muscular sense and for a sense of effort. , 1977, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[8]  A. G. Feldman Once more on the equilibrium-point hypothesis (lambda model) for motor control. , 1986, Journal of motor behavior.

[9]  S. S. Stevens,et al.  Subjective scaling of length and area and the matching of length to loudness and brightness. , 1963, Journal of experimental psychology.

[10]  G L Gottlieb,et al.  Response to sudden torques about ankle in man. II. Postmyotatic reactions. , 1980, Journal of neurophysiology.

[11]  D. McCloskey,et al.  Changes in motor commands, as shown by changes in perceived heaviness, during partial curarization and peripheral anaesthesia in man , 1977, The Journal of physiology.

[12]  C. L. Doren Cross-modality matches of finger span and line length , 1995 .

[13]  S. Link,et al.  Bias in Quantifying Judgments , 1989 .

[14]  D. McCloskey,et al.  Estimation of weights and tensions and apparent involvement of a "sense of effort". , 1974, Experimental neurology.

[15]  J. C. Stevens,et al.  Scales of apparent force. , 1959, Journal of experimental psychology.

[16]  I. W. Hunter,et al.  Effect of fatigue on force sensation , 1983, Experimental Neurology.

[17]  J. Houk,et al.  Regulatory actions of human stretch reflex. , 1976, Journal of neurophysiology.

[18]  I. Hunter,et al.  Perceived force in fatiguing isometric contractions , 1983, Perception & psychophysics.

[19]  S. S. Stevens,et al.  Regression effect in psychophysical judgment , 1966 .

[20]  J. Zwislocki,et al.  On Some Factors Affecting the Estimation of Loudness , 1960 .

[21]  Jozef J. Zwislocki,et al.  Some Factors Affecting the Estimation of Loudness , 1962 .

[22]  S. S. Stevens,et al.  Ratio scales and category scales for a dozen perceptual continua. , 1957, Journal of experimental psychology.

[23]  H. Eisler,et al.  Subjective scale of force for a large muscle group. , 1962, Journal of experimental psychology.

[24]  B. Bigland-ritchie,et al.  Sensation of static force in muscles of different length , 1979, Experimental Neurology.

[25]  R. R. Carter,et al.  Stiffness regulation by reflex action in the normal human hand. , 1990, Journal of neurophysiology.

[26]  William S. Cain,et al.  Effort in isometric muscular contractions related to force level and duration , 1970 .

[27]  J. C. Stevens Static and Dynamic Exertion: A Psychophysical Similarity and Dissimilarity , 1989 .

[28]  L. Jones,et al.  Perception of force and weight: theory and research. , 1986, Psychological bulletin.

[29]  G A Gescheider,et al.  Psychophysical scaling. , 1988, Annual review of psychology.

[30]  Simon C. Gandevia,et al.  Kinesthesia and unique solutions for control of multijoint movements , 1992, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[31]  P. R. Bevington,et al.  Data Reduction and Error Analysis for the Physical Sciences , 1969 .

[32]  THE CEILING OF PSYCHOPHYSICAL POWER FUNCTIONS. , 1965, The American journal of psychology.