Access Restriction

Author Pinter, Ilona J. ♦ Soest, Arthur J. ♦ Bobbert, Maarten F. ♦ Smeets, Jeroen B. J.
Source SpringerLink
Content type Text
Publisher Springer-Verlag
File Format PDF
Copyright Year ©2012
Language English
Subject Domain (in DDC) Technology ♦ Medicine & health
Subject Keyword Musculoskeletal model ♦ Motor control ♦ Mechanical perturbations ♦ Elbow ♦ Statistical Physics, Dynamical Systems and Complexity ♦ Computer Application in Life Sciences ♦ Neurobiology ♦ Bioinformatics ♦ Neurosciences
Abstract Within the field of motor control, there is no consensus on which kinematic and kinetic aspects of movements are planned or controlled. Perturbing goal-directed movements is a frequently used tool to answer this question. To be able to draw conclusions about motor control from kinematic responses to perturbations, a model of the periphery (i.e., the skeleton, muscle–tendon complexes, and spinal reflex circuitry) is required. The purpose of the present study was to determine to what extent such conclusions depend on the level of simplification with which the dynamical properties of the periphery are modeled. For this purpose, we simulated fast goal-directed single-joint movement with four existing types of models. We tested how three types of perturbations affected movement trajectory if motor commands remained unchanged. We found that the four types of models of the periphery showed different robustness to the perturbations, leading to different predictions on how accurate motor commands need to be, i.e., how accurate the knowledge of external conditions needs to be. This means that when interpreting kinematic responses obtained in perturbation experiments the level of error correction attributed to adaptation of motor commands depends on the type of model used to describe the periphery.
ISSN 03401200
Age Range 18 to 22 years ♦ above 22 year
Educational Use Research
Education Level UG and PG
Learning Resource Type Article
Publisher Date 2012-08-07
Publisher Place Berlin/Heidelberg
e-ISSN 14320770
Journal Biological Cybernetics
Volume Number 106
Issue Number 8
Page Count 11
Starting Page 441
Ending Page 451

Open content in new tab

   Open content in new tab
Source: SpringerLink