Motor Learning: Changes in the Structure of Variability in a Redundant Task

Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 629)


Although variability is a fundamental and ubiquitous feature of movement in all biological systems, skilled performance is typically associated with a low level of variability and, implicitly, random noise. Hence, during practice performance variability undergoes changes leading to an overall reduction. However, learning manifests itself through more than just a reduction of random noise. To better understand the processes underlying acquisition and control of movements we show how the examination of variability and its changes with practice provides a suitable window to shed light on this phenomenon. We present one route into this problem that is particularly suited for tasks with redundant degrees of freedom: task performance is parsed into execution and result variables that are related by some function which provides a set of equivalent executions for a given result. Variability over repeated performances is analyzed with a view to this solution manifold. We present a method that parses the structure of variability into four conceptually motivated components and review three methods that are currently used in motor control research. Their advantages and limitations are discussed.


Joint Angle Motor Learning Result Space Task Description Release Velocity 


  1. Arutyunyan, G. H., Gurfinkel, V. S., & Mirskii, M. L. (1968). Investigation of aiming at a target. Biophysics, 13, 536–538.Google Scholar
  2. Arutyunyan, G. H., Gurfinkel, V. S., & Mirskii, M. L. (1969). Organization of movements on execution by man of an exact postural task. Biophysics, 14, 1162–1167.Google Scholar
  3. ∗Bernstein, N. (1967). The coordination and regulation of movement. London: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  4. Cohen, R., & Sternad, D. (2008). Variability in matorlearning: Relocating, channeling and Reducing Noise. Experimental Brain Research.Google Scholar
  5. Craig, J. J. (1986). Introduction to robotics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  6. ∗Cusumano, J. P., & Cesari, P. (2006). Body-goal variability mapping in an aiming task. Biological Cybernetics, 94(5), 367–379.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davids, K., Bennett, S., & Newell, K. M. (2006). Movement system variability. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.Google Scholar
  8. Harris, C. M., & Wolpert, D. M. (1998). Signal-dependent noise determines motor planning. Nature, 394, 780–784.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kudo, K., Tsutsui, S., Ishikura, T., Ito, T., & Yamamoto, Y. (2000). Compensatory correlation of release parameters in a throwing task. Journal of Motor Behavior, 32(4), 337–345.Google Scholar
  10. ∗Latash, M. L., Scholz, J. P., Danion, F., & Schöner, G. (2002). Motor control strategies revealed in the structure of variability. Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews, 30, 26–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Li´egeois, A. (1977). Automatic supervisory control of the configuration and behavior of multibody mechanisms. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, SMC-7(12), 868–871.Google Scholar
  12. Martin, T. A., Gregor, B. E., Norris, N. A., & Thatch, W. T. (2001). Throwing accuracy in the vertical direction during prism adaptation: not simply timing of ball release. Journal of Neurophysiology, 85, 2298–2302.Google Scholar
  13. ∗Müller, H., Frank, T., & Sternad, D. (2007). Variability, covariation and invariance with respect to coordinate systems in motor control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33(1), 250–255.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Müller, H., & Sternad, D. (2003). A randomization method for the calculation of covariation in multiple nonlinear relations: Illustrated at the example of goal-directed movements. Biological Cybernetics, 39, 22–33.Google Scholar
  15. Müller, H., & Sternad, D. (2004a). Accuracy and variability in goal-oriented movements: decomposition of gender differences in children. Journal of Human Kinetics, 12, 31–50.Google Scholar
  16. ∗Müller, H., & Sternad, D. (2004b). Decomposition of variability in the execution of goal-oriented tasks – Three components of skill improvement. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30(1), 212–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mussa-Ivaldi, F. A., & Hogan, N. (1991). Integrable solutions of kinematic redundancy via impedance control. International Journal of Robotics Research, 10(5), 481–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Newell, K. M., & Corcos, D. M. (1993). Variability and motor control. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.Google Scholar
  19. Newell, K. M., Deutsch, K. M., Sosnoff, J. J., & Mayer-Kress, G. (2006). Variability in motor output as noise: A default and erroneous proposition? In K. D. Davis, S. Bennett & K. M. Newell (Eds.), Movement system variability (pp. 3–22). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.Google Scholar
  20. Scholz, J. P., & Schöner, G. (1999). The uncontrolled manifold concept: identifying control variables for a functional task. Experimental Brain Research, 126, 289–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Scholz, J. P., Schöner, G., & Latash, M. L. (2000). Identifying the control structure of multijoint coordination during pistol shooting. Experimental Brain Research, 135, 382–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Smeets, J. B. J. (2000). The relation between movement parameters and learning. Experimental Brain Research, 132(4), 550–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Smeets, J. B. J., & Louw, S. (2007). The contribution of covariation to skill improvement is an ambiguous measure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33(1), 246–249.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Stimpel, E. (1933). Der Wurf. In F. Krüger & O. Klemm (Eds.), Motorik (Vol. 9, pp. 109–138). München: Beck.Google Scholar
  25. Vaillancourt, D. E., & Newell, K. M. (2001). Woodworth (1899): Movement variability and theories of motor control. In M. L. Latash & V. M. Zatsiorsky (Eds.), Classics in Movement Science (pp. 409–435). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.Google Scholar
  26. Woodworth, R. S. (1899). The accuracy of voluntary movement. Psychological Review Monograph Supplements, 3(3), 1–119.Google Scholar
  27. The references marked with an asterisk (*) are specifically recommended for further introduction or background to the topic.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departments of Kinesiology and Integrative BiosciencesPennsylvania State UniversityUniversity PartUSA

Personalised recommendations