» Articles » PMID: 24944215

The Cost of Moving Optimally: Kinematic Path Selection

Overview
Journal J Neurophysiol
Specialties Neurology
Physiology
Date 2014 Jun 20
PMID 24944215
Citations 25
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

It is currently unclear whether the brain plans movement kinematics explicitly or whether movement paths arise implicitly through optimization of a cost function that takes into account control and/or dynamic variables. Several cost functions are proposed in the literature that are very different in nature (e.g., control effort, torque change, and jerk), yet each can predict common movement characteristics. We set out to disentangle predictions of the different variables using a combination of modeling and empirical studies. Subjects performed goal-directed arm movements in a force field (FF) in combination with visual perturbations of seen hand position. This FF was designed to have distinct optimal movements for muscle-input and dynamic costs while leaving kinematic cost unchanged. Visual perturbations in turn changed the kinematic cost but left the dynamic and muscle-input costs unchanged. An optimally controlled, physiologically realistic arm model was used to predict movements under the various cost variables. Experimental results were not consistent with a cost function containing any of the control and dynamic costs investigated. Movement patterns of all experimental conditions were adequately predicted by a kinematic cost function comprising both visually and somatosensory perceived jerk. The present study provides clear behavioral evidence that the brain solves kinematic and mechanical redundancy in separate steps: in a first step, movement kinematics are planned; and in a second, separate step, muscle activation patterns are generated.

Citing Articles

Kinematic markers of skill in first-person shooter video games.

Warburton M, Campagnoli C, Mon-Williams M, Mushtaq F, Morehead J PNAS Nexus. 2023; 2(8):pgad249.

PMID: 37564360 PMC: 10411933. DOI: 10.1093/pnasnexus/pgad249.


Limiting radial pedal forces greatly reduces maximal power output and efficiency in sprint cycling: an optimal control study.

Kistemaker D, Terwiel R, Reuvers E, Bobbert M J Appl Physiol (1985). 2023; 134(4):980-991.

PMID: 36825648 PMC: 10292967. DOI: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00733.2021.


Tapping on a target: dealing with uncertainty about its position and motion.

Brenner E, de la Malla C, Smeets J Exp Brain Res. 2022; 241(1):81-104.

PMID: 36371477 PMC: 9870842. DOI: 10.1007/s00221-022-06503-7.


Using Bayesian inference to estimate plausible muscle forces in musculoskeletal models.

Johnson R, Lakeland D, Finley J J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2022; 19(1):34.

PMID: 35321736 PMC: 8944069. DOI: 10.1186/s12984-022-01008-4.


The energetic basis for smooth human arm movements.

Wong J, Cluff T, Kuo A Elife. 2021; 10.

PMID: 34927584 PMC: 8741215. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.68013.


References
1.
Todorov E, Jordan M . Optimal feedback control as a theory of motor coordination. Nat Neurosci. 2002; 5(11):1226-35. DOI: 10.1038/nn963. View

2.
Ackermann M, van den Bogert A . Optimality principles for model-based prediction of human gait. J Biomech. 2010; 43(6):1055-60. PMC: 2849893. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2009.12.012. View

3.
Harris C, Wolpert D . Signal-dependent noise determines motor planning. Nature. 1998; 394(6695):780-4. DOI: 10.1038/29528. View

4.
Wolpert D, Ghahramani Z, Jordan M . Are arm trajectories planned in kinematic or dynamic coordinates? An adaptation study. Exp Brain Res. 1995; 103(3):460-70. DOI: 10.1007/BF00241505. View

5.
Dum R, Strick P . Motor areas in the frontal lobe of the primate. Physiol Behav. 2003; 77(4-5):677-82. DOI: 10.1016/s0031-9384(02)00929-0. View