Changes in movement kinematics during single-joint movements against expectedly and unexpectedly changed inertial loads

Abstract The study had two goals: (1) to understand the role of peripheral and central factors in changes in the movement symmetry ratio (acceleration time divided by deceleration time); and (2) to compare several theories of motor control with respect to their ability to predict changes in a number of kinematic indices when movements are performed against expectedly and unexpectedly changed inertial loads. Subjects performed elbow flexion movements from a standard initial position to a fixed target “as fast as possible” against three different inertial loads. In some trials, prior to the movement, the load was changed unexpectedly for the subject. Then the load remained the same for a block of trials, then changed again, and so on. We assumed that the first trial of a block was performed using central control patterns associated with moving a different expected load used in the previous block of trials. The main findings included: (a) the equifinality of movements in all conditions, irrespective of actual and expected loads; (b) a decrease in peak velocity and an increase in movement time when the actual load increased; (c) no significant changes in peak velocity and movement time when moving against a load while expecting a different load; and (d) symmetry ratio decreased with actual load and increased with expected load. Separate analyses of the effects of changes of expected and actual loads showed different slopes of the relation between peak velocity and movement symmetry ratio. Based on the last findings we conclude that movement symmetry is defined by both peripheral factors, possibly related to the role of damping forces, and by central control patterns. The equilibrium-point (EP) hypothesis is able to handle the findings better than torque-control models which make wrong predictions with respect to findings (a), (c), and (d) or a model combining control of torque patterns with specification of a final equilibrium position which makes wrong predictions with respect to findings (c).

[1]  N. Hogan,et al.  Does the nervous system use equilibrium-point control to guide single and multiple joint movements? , 1992, The Behavioral and brain sciences.

[2]  Vladimir M. Zatsiorsky On Muscle and Joint Viscosity , 1997 .

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

[4]  O. Bock Load compensation in human goal-directed arm movements , 1990, Behavioural Brain Research.

[5]  C. Atkeson,et al.  Learning arm kinematics and dynamics. , 1989, Annual review of neuroscience.

[6]  F. Zajac Muscle and tendon: properties, models, scaling, and application to biomechanics and motor control. , 1989, Critical reviews in biomedical engineering.

[7]  M L Latash,et al.  Organizing principles for single joint movements: V. Agonist-antagonist interactions. , 1992, Journal of neurophysiology.

[8]  A. G. Feldman,et al.  Control processes underlying elbow flexion movements may be independent of kinematic and electromyographic patterns: experimental study and modelling , 1997, Neuroscience.

[9]  C. Atkeson,et al.  Kinematic features of unrestrained vertical arm movements , 1985, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[10]  S. Jaric,et al.  Changes in the symmetry of rapid movements Effects of velocity and viscosity , 1998, Experimental Brain Research.

[11]  M. Latash,et al.  Joint stiffness: Myth or reality? , 1993 .

[12]  A. G. Feldman Once More on the Equilibrium-Point Hypothesis (λ Model) for Motor Control , 1986 .

[13]  G. L. Gottlieb,et al.  Reconstruction of shifting elbow joint compliant characteristics during fast and slow movements , 1991, Neuroscience.

[14]  Schmitz Rj Clinical Applications in Surface Electromyography: Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain. , 1999 .

[15]  Mark L. Latash,et al.  The effects of practice on movement reproduction: Implications for models of motor control , 1996 .

[16]  N. Hogan An organizing principle for a class of voluntary movements , 1984, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[17]  J. Cooke,et al.  Movement-related phasic muscle activation. I. Relations with temporal profile of movement. , 1990, Journal of neurophysiology.

[18]  S. A. Wallace,et al.  An impulse-timing theory for reciprocal control of muscular activity in rapid, discrete movements. , 1981, Journal of motor behavior.

[19]  A. G. Feldman,et al.  The origin and use of positional frames of reference in motor control , 1995, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[20]  D M Corcos,et al.  Organizing principles for single-joint movements. I. A speed-insensitive strategy. , 1989, Journal of neurophysiology.