Manipulating objects with internal degrees of freedom: evidence for model-based control.

There is substantial evidence that humans possess an accurate and adaptable internal model of the dynamics of their arm that is utilized by the nervous system for controlling arm movements. However, it is not known if such model-based strategies are used for controlling dynamical systems outside the body. The need to predict events in the external world is not restricted to the execution of reaching movements or to the handling of rigid tools. Model-based control may also be critical for performing functional tasks with non-rigid objects such as stabilizing a cup of coffee. The present study investigated the strategies used by humans to control simple mass-spring objects. Subjects made straight line reaching movements to a target while interacting with a robotic manipulandum that simulated the dynamics of a one-dimensional mass on a spring. After learning, neither hand nor object kinematics returned to those of free reaching, suggesting that this task was not learned as a perturbation of free reaching. Although there are control strategies (such as slowing the movement of the hand) that would require little or no knowledge of object dynamics, subjects did not adopt these strategies. Instead, they tailored their motor commands to the particular object being manipulated. When object parameters were unexpectedly altered in a way that required no changes in kinematics to successfully complete the task, subjects nonetheless exhibited substantial kinematic deviations. These deviations were consistent with those predicted by a model of the arm-plus-object system driven by a low-impedance controller that incorporated an explicit inverse model of arm-plus-object dynamics. The observed behavior could not be reproduced by a controller that relied on modulating hand impedance alone with no inverse model. These results were therefore consistent with the hypothesis that subjects learn to control the kinematics of manipulated objects by forming an internal model that specified the forces to be exerted by the hand on the object to induce the desired motion of that object.

[1]  F A Mussa-Ivaldi,et al.  Adaptive representation of dynamics during learning of a motor task , 1994, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[2]  Naoji Shiroma,et al.  Collision-Free Trajectory Planning for a 3-DoF Robot with a Passive Joint , 2000, Int. J. Robotics Res..

[3]  Hiroshi Imamizu,et al.  Human cerebellar activity reflecting an acquired internal model of a new tool , 2000, Nature.

[4]  David A. Winter,et al.  Biomechanics and Motor Control of Human Movement , 1990 .

[5]  D M Wolpert,et al.  Multiple paired forward and inverse models for motor control , 1998, Neural Networks.

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

[7]  J.M. Hollerbach,et al.  A robust ensemble data method for identification of human joint mechanical properties during movement , 1999, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[8]  Mitsuo Kawato,et al.  Equilibrium-Point Control Hypothesis Examined by Measured Arm Stiffness During Multijoint Movement , 1996, Science.

[9]  T. Brashers-Krug,et al.  Functional Stages in the Formation of Human Long-Term Motor Memory , 1997, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[10]  D M Wolpert,et al.  Predicting the Consequences of Our Own Actions: The Role of Sensorimotor Context Estimation , 1998, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[11]  F A Mussa-Ivaldi,et al.  Central representation of time during motor learning. , 1999, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[12]  E. Bizzi,et al.  Controlling multijoint motor behavior. , 1987, Exercise and sport sciences reviews.

[13]  R A Scheidt,et al.  Persistence of motor adaptation during constrained, multi-joint, arm movements. , 2000, Journal of neurophysiology.

[14]  F. Mussa-Ivaldi,et al.  The motor system does not learn the dynamics of the arm by rote memorization of past experience. , 1997, Journal of neurophysiology.

[15]  E Burdet,et al.  A method for measuring endpoint stiffness during multi-joint arm movements. , 2000, Journal of biomechanics.

[16]  J. Lackner,et al.  Motor adaptation to Coriolis force perturbations of reaching movements: endpoint but not trajectory adaptation transfers to the nonexposed arm. , 1995, Journal of neurophysiology.

[17]  D. Humphrey,et al.  Separate cortical systems for control of joint movement and joint stiffness: reciprocal activation and coactivation of antagonist muscles. , 1983, Advances in neurology.

[18]  P. Crago,et al.  Effects of voluntary force generation on the elastic components of endpoint stiffness , 2001, Experimental Brain Research.

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

[20]  R L Sainburg,et al.  Intersegmental dynamics are controlled by sequential anticipatory, error correction, and postural mechanisms. , 1999, Journal of neurophysiology.

[21]  P. Morasso Spatial control of arm movements , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.

[22]  Toshio Tsuji,et al.  Human hand impedance characteristics during maintained posture , 1995, Biological Cybernetics.

[23]  J. Lackner,et al.  Rapid adaptation to Coriolis force perturbations of arm trajectory. , 1994, Journal of neurophysiology.

[24]  Kevin M. Lynch,et al.  Dynamic Nonprehensile Manipulation: Controllability, Planning, and Experiments , 1999, Int. J. Robotics Res..

[25]  C. D. Mah Spatial and temporal modulation of joint stiffness during multijoint movement , 2001, Experimental Brain Research.

[26]  Otmar Bock,et al.  Early stages of load compensation in human aimed arm movements , 1993, Behavioural Brain Research.

[27]  Daniel M. Wolpert,et al.  Forward Models for Physiological Motor Control , 1996, Neural Networks.

[28]  H. Gomi,et al.  Task-Dependent Viscoelasticity of Human Multijoint Arm and Its Spatial Characteristics for Interaction with Environments , 1998, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[29]  S. Schaal,et al.  Robot juggling: implementation of memory-based learning , 1994, IEEE Control Systems.

[30]  Mitsuo Kawato,et al.  Human arm stiffness and equilibrium-point trajectory during multi-joint movement , 1997, Biological Cybernetics.

[31]  D. J. Bennett Stretch reflex responses in the human elbow joint during a voluntary movement. , 1994, The Journal of physiology.

[32]  J V Cohn,et al.  Reaching during virtual rotation: context specific compensations for expected coriolis forces. , 2000, Journal of neurophysiology.

[33]  A. G. Witney,et al.  Learning and decay of prediction in object manipulation. , 2000, Journal of neurophysiology.

[34]  K. J. Cole,et al.  Memory representations underlying motor commands used during manipulation of common and novel objects. , 1993, Journal of neurophysiology.

[35]  T. Flash,et al.  The coordination of arm movements: an experimentally confirmed mathematical model , 1985, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[36]  R Shadmehr,et al.  Spatial Generalization from Learning Dynamics of Reaching Movements , 2000, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[37]  E Bizzi,et al.  Motor learning by field approximation. , 1996, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[38]  Michael I. Jordan,et al.  An internal model for sensorimotor integration. , 1995, Science.

[39]  R Shadmehr,et al.  Electromyographic Correlates of Learning an Internal Model of Reaching Movements , 1999, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[40]  N Hogan,et al.  Planning and execution of multijoint movements. , 1988, Canadian journal of physiology and pharmacology.

[41]  H. Dr,et al.  Separate cortical systems for control of joint movement and joint stiffness: reciprocal activation and coactivation of antagonist muscles. , 1983 .