Adaptation and generalization in acceleration-dependent force fields

Any passive rigid inertial object that we hold in our hand, e.g., a tennis racquet, imposes a field of forces on the arm that depends on limb position, velocity, and acceleration. A fundamental characteristic of this field is that the forces due to acceleration and velocity are linearly separable in the intrinsic coordinates of the limb. In order to learn such dynamics with a collection of basis elements, a control system would generalize correctly and therefore perform optimally if the basis elements that were sensitive to limb velocity were not sensitive to acceleration, and vice versa. However, in the mammalian nervous system proprioceptive sensors like muscle spindles encode a nonlinear combination of all components of limb state, with sensitivity to velocity dominating sensitivity to acceleration. Therefore, limb state in the space of proprioception is not linearly separable despite the fact that this separation is a desirable property of control systems that form models of inertial objects. In building internal models of limb dynamics, does the brain use a representation that is optimal for control of inertial objects, or a representation that is closely tied to how peripheral sensors measure limb state? Here we show that in humans, patterns of generalization of reaching movements in acceleration-dependent fields are strongly inconsistent with basis elements that are optimized for control of inertial objects. Unlike a robot controller that models the dynamics of the natural world and represents velocity and acceleration independently, internal models of dynamics that people learn appear to be rooted in the properties of proprioception, nonlinearly responding to the pattern of muscle activation and representing velocity more strongly than acceleration.

[1]  G Lennerstrand,et al.  Position and velocity sensitivity of muscle spindles in the cat. I. Primary and secondary endings deprived of fusimotor activation. , 1968, Acta physiologica Scandinavica.

[2]  G Lennerstrand,et al.  Dynamic analysis of muscle spindle endings in the cat using length changes of different length-time relations. , 1968, Acta physiologica Scandinavica.

[3]  J. Houk,et al.  Non-Linear Behaviour of Spindle Receptors , 1973 .

[4]  K. Pearson,et al.  Control of Posture and Locomotion , 1973, Advances in Behavioral Biology.

[5]  J C Houk,et al.  Analysis of response properties of deefferented mammalian spindle receptors based on frequency response. , 1975, Journal of neurophysiology.

[6]  J. Houk,et al.  Dependence of dynamic response of spindle receptors on muscle length and velocity. , 1981, Journal of neurophysiology.

[7]  P. Matthews Evolving views on the internal operation and functional role of the muscle spindle. , 1981, The Journal of physiology.

[8]  Z. Hasan A model of spindle afferent response to muscle stretch. , 1983, Journal of neurophysiology.

[9]  Weiping Li,et al.  Applied Nonlinear Control , 1991 .

[10]  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.

[11]  A. P. Georgopoulos,et al.  Movement parameters and neural activity in motor cortex and area 5. , 1994, Cerebral cortex.

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

[13]  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.

[14]  Christopher G. Atkeson,et al.  Constructive Incremental Learning from Only Local Information , 1998, Neural Computation.

[15]  M. Gorassini,et al.  Models of ensemble firing of muscle spindle afferents recorded during normal locomotion in cats , 1998, The Journal of physiology.

[16]  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.

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

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

[19]  Reza Shadmehr,et al.  Learning of action through adaptive combination of motor primitives , 2000, Nature.

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

[21]  Reza Shadmehr,et al.  Learning the dynamics of reaching movements results in the modification of arm impedance and long-latency perturbation responses , 2001, Biological Cybernetics.

[22]  Rieko Osu,et al.  The central nervous system stabilizes unstable dynamics by learning optimal impedance , 2001, Nature.

[23]  R. Shadmehr,et al.  A Gain-Field Encoding of Limb Position and Velocity in the Internal Model of Arm Dynamics , 2003, PLoS biology.

[24]  S. Scott,et al.  A motor learning strategy reflects neural circuitry for limb control , 2003, Nature Neuroscience.

[25]  Chou-Ching K. Lin,et al.  Structural Model of the Muscle Spindle , 2004, Annals of Biomedical Engineering.

[26]  Reza Shadmehr,et al.  Internal models of limb dynamics and the encoding of limb state , 2005, Journal of neural engineering.