Abstract

Feedback delays are a major challenge for any controlled process, and yet we are able to easily control limb movements with speed and grace. A popular hypothesis suggests that the brain largely mitigates the impact of feedback delays (∼50 ms) by regulating the limb intrinsic visco-elastic properties (or impedance) with muscle co-contraction, which generates forces proportional to changes in joint angle and velocity with zero delay. Although attractive, this hypothesis is often based on estimates of limb impedance that include neural feedback, and therefore describe the entire motor system. In addition, this approach does not systematically take into account that muscles exhibit high intrinsic impedance only for small perturbations (short-range impedance). As a consequence, it remains unclear how the nervous system handles large perturbations, as well as disturbances encountered during movement when short-range impedance cannot contribute. We address this issue by comparing feedback responses to load pulses applied to the elbow of human subjects with theoretical simulations. After validating the model parameters, we show that the ability of humans to generate fast and accurate corrective movements is compatible with a control strategy based on state estimation. We also highlight the merits of delay-uncompensated robust control, which can mitigate the impact of internal model errors, but at the cost of slowing feedback corrections. We speculate that the puzzling observation of presynaptic inhibition of peripheral afferents in the spinal cord at movement onset helps to counter the destabilizing transition from high muscle impedance during posture to low muscle impedance during movement.

Highlights

  • The presence of sensory and motor delays in any control process can lead to highly unstable behavior [1]

  • Many studies include the stiffness related to muscle activation, but implicitly neural feedback as a factor contributing to limb impedance [5,7,8,12,13,14,15,16,17,18]

  • Muscles exhibit high mechanical impedance only against small perturbations during posture, which questions the general contribution of intrinsic muscle impedance for feedback control

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The presence of sensory and motor delays in any control process can lead to highly unstable behavior [1]. Many studies include the stiffness related to muscle activation, but implicitly neural feedback as a factor contributing to limb impedance [5,7,8,12,13,14,15,16,17,18] This is because these studies use estimates of joint stiffness and viscosity based on perturbation responses that last .200 ms [12], and depend on neural feedback including the short-latency (,20 ms–50 ms), longlatency (,50 ms–100 ms) and early voluntary responses Estimates of limb impedance based on motor responses beyond ,50 ms include essentially the entire motor system, peripheral and central

Results
Discussion
Conclusion

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.