A Simple Model to Estimate the Percentage of Motor Plan Reuse From Hysteresis Effect Size

In sequential tasks, a partial reuse of former motor plans results in a persistence in the former posture (termed hysteresis). The cost-optimization hypothesis states that the percentage of reuse depends on the relative cognitive and mechanical cost of each movement. These costs should be constant across all drawers, yet previous studies found a larger hysteresis effect at the central drawers and declining effects toward the periphery. In the current study, we show that a simple mathematical model that assumes a sigmoid optimal grasp angle function and a fixed percentage of motor plan reuse explains the posture variance in a randomized and an ordered sequential drawer opening task. This finding indicates that (1) the optimal pro/supination angle is a sigmoid function of drawer height, (2) the percentage of motor plan reuse is constant across drawers, and (3) a constant percentage of reuse results in a larger hysteresis effect at the central drawers. Based on the model, the percentage of motor plan reuse in future studies can be estimated from the size of the motor hysteresis effect.

[1]  D. Rosenbaum,et al.  Moving and memorizing: motor planning modulates the recency effect in serial and free recall. , 2009, Acta psychologica.

[2]  S. Azen,et al.  Normal range of motion of joints in male subjects. , 1979, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[3]  D. Rosenbaum,et al.  Planning macroscopic aspects of manual control , 1992 .

[4]  Christiane,et al.  World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. , 2004, Journal international de bioethique = International journal of bioethics.

[5]  Thomas Schack,et al.  Motor control strategies in a continuous task space. , 2011, Motor control.

[6]  Steven A. Jax,et al.  The problem of serial order in behavior: Lashley's legacy. , 2007, Human movement science.

[7]  Thomas Schack,et al.  Cognitive costs of motor planning do not differ between pointing and grasping in a sequential task , 2016, Experimental Brain Research.

[8]  Ruud G. J. Meulenbroek,et al.  Behavioral evidence for left-hemisphere specialization of motor planning , 2010, Experimental Brain Research.

[9]  Thomas Schack,et al.  Influence of mechanical load on sequential effects , 2013, Experimental Brain Research.

[10]  M. Short,et al.  Precision hypothesis and the end-state comfort effect. , 1999, Acta psychologica.

[11]  D. Marquardt.  An Algorithm for Least-Squares Estimation of Nonlinear Parameters , 1963 .

[12]  Kenneth Levenberg.  A METHOD FOR THE SOLUTION OF CERTAIN NON – LINEAR PROBLEMS IN LEAST SQUARES , 1944 .

[13]  B. Steenbergen,et al.  Combined effects of planning and execution constraints on bimanual task performance , 2008, Experimental Brain Research.

[14]  M. Short,et al.  Planning macroscopic aspects of manual control: end-state comfort and point-of-change effects. , 1997, Acta psychologica.

[15]  K. Lashley.  The problem of serial order in behavior , 1951 .

[16]  R. Sainburg.  Evidence for a dynamic-dominance hypothesis of handedness , 2001, Experimental Brain Research.

[17]  R. Duggleby,et al.  What happens when data are fitted to the wrong equation? , 1978, The Biochemical journal.

[18]  Thomas Schack,et al.  Motor hysteresis in a sequential grasping and pointing task is absent in task-critical joints , 2016, Experimental Brain Research.

[19]  R. Sainburg,et al.  Differences in control of limb dynamics during dominant and nondominant arm reaching. , 2000, Journal of neurophysiology.

[20]  D. Rosenbaum,et al.  Hand path priming in manual obstacle avoidance: evidence that the dorsal stream does not only control visually guided actions in real time. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[21]  J. Myerson,et al.  The effects of eye and limb movements on working memory , 2001, Memory.

[22]  M. D’Esposito.  Working memory. , 2008, Handbook of clinical neurology.

[23]  M L Johnson,et al.  Analysis of residuals: criteria for determining goodness-of-fit. , 1992, Methods in enzymology.

[24]  D. Rosenbaum,et al.  Hand path priming in manual obstacle avoidance: Rapid decay of dorsal stream information , 2009, Neuropsychologia.

[25]  R. C. Oldfield.  The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. , 1971, Neuropsychologia.

[26]  H. Haken,et al.  A theoretical model of phase transitions in human hand movements , 2004, Biological Cybernetics.

[27]  J. Kelso,et al.  Multifunctionality and switching in the coordination dynamics of reaching and grasping , 1994 .

[28]  Steven A. Jax,et al.  Hand path priming in manual obstacle avoidance: evidence for abstract spatiotemporal forms in human motor control. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[29]  Takuji Nishimura,et al.  Mersenne twister: a 623-dimensionally equidistributed uniform pseudo-random number generator , 1998, TOMC.