Two-phase strategy of neural control for planar reaching movements: I. XY coordination variability and its relation to end-point variability

A quantitative model of optimal transport–aperture coordination (TAC) during reach-to-grasp movements has been developed in our previous studies. The utilization of that model for data analysis allowed, for the first time, to examine the phase dependence of the precision demand specified by the CNS for neurocomputational information processing during an ongoing movement. It was shown that the CNS utilizes a two-phase strategy for movement control. That strategy consists of reducing the precision demand for neural computations during the initial phase, which decreases the cost of information processing at the expense of lower extent of control optimality. To successfully grasp the target object, the CNS increases precision demand during the final phase, resulting in higher extent of control optimality. In the present study, we generalized the model of optimal TAC to a model of optimal coordination between X and Y components of point-to-point planar movements (XYC). We investigated whether the CNS uses the two-phase control strategy for controlling those movements, and how the strategy parameters depend on the prescribed movement speed, movement amplitude and the size of the target area. The results indeed revealed a substantial similarity between the CNS’s regulation of TAC and XYC. First, the variability of XYC within individual trials was minimal, meaning that execution noise during the movement was insignificant. Second, the inter-trial variability of XYC was considerable during the majority of the movement time, meaning that the precision demand for information processing was lowered, which is characteristic for the initial phase. That variability significantly decreased, indicating higher extent of control optimality, during the shorter final movement phase. The final phase was the longest (shortest) under the most (least) challenging combination of speed and accuracy requirements, fully consistent with the concept of the two-phase control strategy. This paper further discussed the relationship between motor variability and XYC variability.

[1]  Jinsung Wang,et al.  Adaptation to Visuomotor Rotations Remaps Movement Vectors, Not Final Positions , 2005, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[2]  Robert Sessions Woodworth,et al.  THE ACCURACY OF VOLUNTARY MOVEMENT , 1899 .

[3]  Pierre Naslin.  Essentials of optimal control , 1968 .

[4]  P. Viviani,et al.  Frames of reference and control parameters in visuomanual pointing. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[5]  J. R. Bloedel,et al.  Control of aperture closure during reach-to-grasp movements in parkinson’s disease , 2005, Experimental Brain Research.

[6]  A. Faisal,et al.  Noise in the nervous system , 2008, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[7]  Scott D. Brown,et al.  The Optimality of Sensory Processing during the Speed–Accuracy Tradeoff , 2012, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[8]  G. Stelmach,et al.  Phase dependence of transport–aperture coordination variability reveals control strategy of reach-to-grasp movements , 2010, Experimental Brain Research.

[9]  R A Abrams,et al.  Optimality in human motor performance: ideal control of rapid aimed movements. , 1988, Psychological review.

[10]  G. Stelmach,et al.  The effect of Parkinson’s disease on the control of multi-segmental coordination , 2005, Brain and Cognition.

[11]  Miya Kato Rand,et al.  Control of aperture closure initiation during reach-to-grasp movements under manipulations of visual feedback and trunk involvement in Parkinson’s disease , 2010, Experimental Brain Research.

[12]  P. Bédard,et al.  On-line vs. off-line utilization of peripheral visual afferent information to ensure spatial accuracy of goal-directed movements , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.

[13]  I. Jolliffe.  Principal Component Analysis , 2002 .

[14]  A. Papoulis.  Probability and Statistics , 1989 .

[15]  L Proteau,et al.  Determining movement onsets from temporal series. , 1993, Journal of motor behavior.

[16]  Emanuel Todorov,et al.  Structured variability of muscle activations supports the minimal intervention principle of motor control. , 2009, Journal of neurophysiology.

[17]  Romeo Chua,et al.  Is proprioception calibrated during visually guided movements? , 2005, Experimental Brain Research.

[18]  T. Flash,et al.  Minimum-jerk, two-thirds power law, and isochrony: converging approaches to movement planning. , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[19]  Michael A. Khan,et al.  Online Versus Offline Processing of Visual Feedback in the Production of Component Submovements , 2003, Journal of motor behavior.

[20]  Michael I. Jordan,et al.  Optimal feedback control as a theory of motor coordination , 2002, Nature Neuroscience.

[21]  Mitsuo Kawato,et al.  Internal models for motor control and trajectory planning , 1999, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

[22]  R. J. van Beers,et al.  The role of execution noise in movement variability. , 2004, Journal of neurophysiology.

[23]  P Haggard,et al.  On the hand transport component of prehensile movements. , 1997, Journal of motor behavior.

[24]  Daniel M Wolpert,et al.  Computational principles of sensorimotor control that minimize uncertainty and variability , 2007, The Journal of physiology.

[25]  Karl M. Newell,et al.  Variability and Motor Control , 1993 .

[26]  Anatol G. Feldman,et al.  Reach-to-grasp movement as a minimization process , 2010, Experimental Brain Research.

[27]  Stephan Riek,et al.  Real-time error detection but not error correction drives automatic visuomotor adaptation , 2010, Experimental Brain Research.

[28]  Zoubin Ghahramani,et al.  Computational principles of movement neuroscience , 2000, Nature Neuroscience.

[29]  Gavin P. Lawrence,et al.  Inferring online and offline processing of visual feedback in target-directed movements from kinematic data , 2006, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews.

[30]  Yury P. Shimansky,et al.  Two-phase strategy of controlling motor coordination determined by task performance optimality , 2012, Biological Cybernetics.

[31]  Yury P. Shimansky.  Spinal motor control system incorporates an internal model of limb dynamics , 2000, Biological Cybernetics.

[32]  Gavin P. Lawrence,et al.  Online versus offline processing of visual feedback in the control of movement amplitude. , 2003, Acta psychologica.

[33]  Jon H. Davis,et al.  Foundations of Deterministic and Stochastic Control , 2002 .

[34]  Jiping He,et al.  A novel model of motor learning capable of developing an optimal movement control law online from scratch , 2004, Biological Cybernetics.

[35]  M. A. Arbib,et al.  Models of Trajectory Formation and Temporal Interaction of Reach and Grasp. , 1993, Journal of motor behavior.

[36]  Mathias Hegele,et al.  Adaptation to visuomotor rotations in younger and older adults. , 2008, Psychology and aging.

[37]  G. Fullerton.  Psychology and physiology. , 1896 .

[38]  W. Helsen,et al.  A century later: Woodworth's (1899) two-component model of goal-directed aiming. , 2001, Psychological bulletin.

[39]  Natalia Dounskaia,et al.  Origins of submovements during pointing movements. , 2008, Acta psychologica.

[40]  Daniel M. Wolpert,et al.  Making smooth moves , 2022 .

[41]  Miya K. Rand,et al.  Quantitative model of transport-aperture coordination during reach-to-grasp movements , 2008, Experimental Brain Research.

[42]  L. Proteau,et al.  Modulation of the primary impulse of spatially-constrained video-aiming movements. , 2009, Human movement science.

[44]  Michael A. Khan,et al.  The Effect of Practice on the Control of Rapid Aiming Movements: Evidence for an Interdependency between Programming and Feedback Processing , 1998 .