Human whole-body reaching in normal gravity and microgravity reveals a strong temporal coordination between postural and focal task components

Previous experiments by our group in normal gravity (1 G) have revealed spatial relationships between postural and focal components of whole-body reaching and pointing movements. We suggested that these relationships could be explained partly through the use of gravity to displace the CoM and attain the object or target position. In this study we compared human whole-body reaching in 1 G and microgravity (0 G) in order to more fully investigate how gravity contributes to strategies adopted for task execution and to determine possible invariant temporal relationships between multiple segments. Whole-body reaching movements made from the standing position in two experimental conditions of execution speed (naturally paced and as fast as possible) were recorded during periods of 1 G and 0 G in parabolic flight. Overall, at each speed of reaching, movement times were significantly slower when performed in 0 G than in 1 G for two of the three subjects, but all subjects were able to produce significantly faster movements in 0 G than in 1 G. Despite similar general trends across subjects observed in 1 G, angular displacements of reaching movements performed in 0 G differed greatly between subjects. There were changes at all joints, but above all at the shoulder and the ankle. However, despite a high intersubject and intratrial variability in 0 G, in both gravity conditions all subjects demonstrated times to peak curvilinear velocity for the finger (end effector) and the whole-body centre of mass (CoM) that coincided, regardless of the speed of execution. Moreover, cross-correlations between multiple segment curvilinear velocities and those of the CoM revealed tight, highly correlated temporal relationships between segments proximal to the CoM (which was expected). However, for more distal segments, the correlations were weaker, and the movements lagged behind movements of the CoM. The major and most interesting finding of this study was that although the finger was the most distal within the segment chain, with respect to the CoM, it was highly correlated with the CoM (0.99–0.98, all conditions) and with no time lag. Despite the large intersubject and interenvironmental variability recorded in this study, temporal relationships between postural task components (CoM displacements) and those of the focal movement (end-effector trajectory) were consistently conserved.

[1]  A. Berthoz,et al.  Head and trunk movements in the frontal plane during complex dynamic equilibrium tasks in humans , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.

[2]  G. Cheron,et al.  Does the coordination between posture and movement during human whole-body reaching ensure center of mass stabilization? , 1999, Experimental Brain Research.

[3]  A Berthoz,et al.  Effect of weightlessness on posture and movement control during a whole body reaching task. , 1995, Acta astronautica.

[4]  Trevor Drew,et al.  Strategies for the integration of posture and movement during reaching in the cat. , 2003, Journal of neurophysiology.

[5]  Francesco Lacquaniti,et al.  Early emergence of temporal co-ordination of lower limb segments elevation angles in human locomotion , 2001, Neuroscience Letters.

[6]  D. Ostry,et al.  Coordination of mono- and bi-articular muscles in multi-degree of freedom elbow movements , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.

[7]  B. Amblard,et al.  Voluntary head stabilization in space during oscillatory trunk movements in the frontal plane performed in weightlessness , 1997, Experimental Brain Research.

[8]  Thierry Pozzo,et al.  Effects of kinematics constraints on hand trajectory during whole-body lifting tasks , 1999, Neuroscience Letters.

[9]  F. G. Evans,et al.  Anatomical Data for Analyzing Human Motion , 1983 .

[10]  Guy Cheron,et al.  Hand trajectory formation during whole body reaching movements in man , 1998, Neuroscience Letters.

[11]  I. Howard,et al.  Accuracy of aimed arm movements in changed gravity. , 1992, Aviation, space, and environmental medicine.

[12]  Alexander Grishin,et al.  Investigating centre of mass stabilisation as the goal of posture and movement coordination during human whole body reaching , 2000, Biological Cybernetics.

[13]  J. Massion,et al.  Axial synergies during human upper trunk bending , 1998, Experimental Brain Research.

[14]  J. Massion,et al.  Forward and backward axial synergies in man , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.

[15]  A Semjen,et al.  Temporal control and motor control: two functional modules which may be influenced differently under microgravity. , 1998, Human movement science.

[16]  C. Assaiante,et al.  A statistical approach to sensorimotor strategies: conjugate cross-correlations. , 1994, Journal of motor behavior.

[17]  R. Lepers,et al.  The role of anticipatory postural adjustments and gravity in gait initiation , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.

[18]  M. de Looze,et al.  Validation of a dynamic linked segment model to calculate joint moments in lifting. , 1992, Clinical biomechanics.

[19]  J. Massion.  Movement, posture and equilibrium: Interaction and coordination , 1992, Progress in Neurobiology.

[20]  Huub M. Toussaint,et al.  Adaptation of center of mass control under microgravity in a whole-body lifting task , 1999, Experimental Brain Research.

[21]  Z. Hasan,et al.  Chapter 33 Kinematic Redundancy , 1999 .

[22]  S Ma,et al.  Two functionally different synergies during arm reaching movements involving the trunk. , 1995, Journal of neurophysiology.

[23]  J. Massion,et al.  Is the erect posture in microgravity based on the control of trunk orientation or center of mass position? , 1997, Experimental Brain Research.

[24]  T. R. Kaminski,et al.  The coordination between trunk and arm motion during pointing movements , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.

[25]  W. Kruskal,et al.  Use of Ranks in One-Criterion Variance Analysis , 1952 .

[26]  Paul J. Stapley,et al.  Coordination between equilibrium and hand trajectories during whole body pointing movements , 2002, Experimental Brain Research.

[27]  Z Hasan,et al.  Kinematic redundancy. , 1999, Progress in brain research.

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

[29]  Z. Hasan,et al.  Qualitative discrepancies between trunk muscle activity and dynamic postural requirements at the initiation of reaching movements performed while sitting , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.

[30]  T. Pozzo,et al.  The role of anticipatory postural adjustments during whole body forward reaching movements , 1998, Neuroreport.

[31]  J R Flanagan,et al.  The Role of Internal Models in Motion Planning and Control: Evidence from Grip Force Adjustments during Movements of Hand-Held Loads , 1997, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[32]  J Massion,et al.  Kinematic synergy adaptation to microgravity during forward trunk movement. , 2000, Journal of neurophysiology.

[33]  Giancarlo Ferrigno,et al.  Inverse dynamic investigation of voluntary leg lateral movements in weightlessness: a new microgravity-specific strategy. , 2003, Journal of biomechanics.

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

[35]  J. Lackner,et al.  Human orientation and movement control in weightless and artificial gravity environments , 2000, Experimental Brain Research.

[36]  G Ferrigno,et al.  Methodological and technological implications of quantitative human movement analysis in long term space flights. , 1999, Journal of biomechanics.