Advertisement

Applying Principles of Motor Control to Rehabilitation Technologies

Chapter

Abstract

Research into the neural control of movement has elucidated important principles that can provide guidelines to rehabilitation professionals for enhancing recovery of motor function in stroke patients. In this chapter, we elaborate four major principles of motor control that have been derived from this research: optimal control, impedance control, neural representations of movement, and motor lateralization. Research on optimal control has indicated that two major categories of cost contribute to motor planning: explicit task-level costs, such as movement accuracy and speed, and implicit costs, such as energy and movement variability. Impedance control refers to neural mechanisms that modulate rapid sensorimotor circuits, such as reflexes, in order to impede perturbations that cannot be anticipated prior to movement. Research on neural representations has indicated that movements are represented in at least two different types of coordinate systems: an extrinsic coordinate frame describing the space outside the body and an intrinsic reference frame describing the relative positions and movements of the body segments relative to one another. Finally, research on motor lateralization has indicated that different aspects of motor control have been specialized to the two cerebral hemispheres. In this chapter, we discuss the neurobiological basis of these four principles and elaborate the implications for designing and implementing ­occupational and physical therapy treatment for movement deficits in stroke patients.

Keywords

Motor control Optimal control Impedance control Motor lateralization Neural representation 

References

  1. 1.
    Teasell R, Foley N, Salter K, Bhogal S, Jutai J, Speechley M. Evidence-based review of stroke rehabilitation: executive summary, 12th edition. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2009;16(6):463–88.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fazekas G, Horvath M, Troznai T, Toth A. Robot-mediated upper limb physiotherapy for patients with spastic hemiparesis: a preliminary study. J Rehabil Med. 2007;39(7):580–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Morasso P. Spatial control of arm movements. Exp Brain Res. 1981;42(2):223–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Harris CM, Wolpert DM. Signal-dependent noise determines motor planning. Nature. 1998;394(6695):780–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Flash T, Hogan N. The coordination of arm movements: an experimentally confirmed mathematical model. J Neurosci. 1985;5(7):1688–703.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Uno Y, Kawato M, Suzuki R. Formation and control of optimal trajectory in human multijoint arm movement. Minimum torque-change model. Biol Cybern. 1989;61(2):89–101.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Atkeson CG, Hollerbach JM. Kinematic features of unrestrained vertical arm movements. J Neurosci. 1985;5(9):2318–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Soechting JF, Buneo CA, Herrmann U, Flanders M. Moving effortlessly in three dimensions: does Donders’ law apply to arm movement? J Neurosci. 1995;15(9):6271–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goble JA, Zhang Y, Shimansky Y, Sharma S, Dounskaia NV. Directional biases reveal utilization of arm’s biomechanical properties for optimization of motor behavior. J Neurophysiol. 2007;98(3):1240–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Todorov E, Jordan MI. Optimal feedback control as a theory of motor coordination. Nat Neurosci. 2002;5(11):1226–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Liu D, Todorov E. Evidence for the flexible sensorimotor strategies predicted by optimal feedback control. J Neurosci. 2007;27(35):9354–68.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wright J. The FIM(TM). The center for outcome measurement in brain injury. 2000. http://www.tbims.org/combi/FIM/index.html.
  13. 13.
    Jebsen RH, Taylor N, Trieschmann RB, Trotter MJ, Howard LA. An objective and standardized test of hand function. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1969;50(6):311–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tatton WG, Lee RG. Evidence for abnormal long-loop reflexes in rigid Parkinsonian patients. Brain Res. 1975;100(3):671–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Matthews PB. The human stretch reflex and the motor cortex. Trends Neurosci. 1991;14(3):87–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hammond PH. The influence of prior instruction to the subject on an apparently involuntary neuro-muscular response. J Physiol. 1956;132(1):17–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pruszynski JA, Kurtzer I, Scott SH. Rapid motor responses are appropriately tuned to the metrics of a visuospatial task. J Neurophysiol. 2008;100(1):224–38.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lacquaniti F, Borghese NA, Carrozzo M. Transient reversal of the stretch reflex in human arm muscles. J Neurophysiol. 1991;66(3):939–54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Franklin DW, So U, Kawato M, Milner TE. Impedance control balances stability with metabolically costly muscle activation. J Neurophysiol. 2004;92(5):3097–105.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mutha PK, Boulinguez P, Sainburg RL. Visual modulation of proprioceptive reflexes during movement. Brain Res. 2008;1246:54–69.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Beer RF, Dewald JP, Rymer WZ. Deficits in the coordination of multijoint arm movements in patients with hemiparesis: evidence for disturbed control of limb dynamics. Exp Brain Res. 2000;131(3):305–19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Georgopoulos AP, Schwartz AB, Kettner RE. Neuronal population coding of movement direction. Science. 1986;233:1416–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fu QG, Flament D, Coltz JD, Ebner TJ. Temporal encoding of movement kinematics in the discharge of primate primary motor and premotor neurons. J Neurophysiol. 1995;73(2):836–54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schwartz AB. Motor cortical activity during drawing movements: population representation during sinusoid tracing. J Neurophysiol. 1993;70(1):28–36.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Caminiti R, Johnson PB, Galli C, Ferraina S, Burnod Y. Making arm movements within different parts of space: the premotor and motor cortical representation of a coordinate system for reaching to visual targets. J Neurosci. 1991;11:1182–97.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kakei S, Hoffman DS, Strick PL. Direction of action is represented in the ventral premotor cortex. Nat Neurosci. 2001;4(10):1020–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cohen DA, Prud’homme MJ, Kalaska JF. Tactile activity in primate primary somatosensory cortex during active arm movements: correlation with receptive field properties. J Neurophysiol. 1994;71(1):161–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fortier PA, Smith AM, Kalaska JF. Comparison of cerebellar and motor cortex activity during reaching: directional tuning and response variability. J Neurophysiol. 1993;69(4):1136–49.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Holdefer RN, Miller LE. Primary motor cortical neurons encode functional muscle synergies. Exp Brain Res. 2002;146(2):233–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Scott SH, Kalaska JF. Reaching movements with similar hand paths but different arm orientations. I. Activity of individual cells in motor cortex. J Neuro­physiol. 1997;77(2):826–52.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kurtzer I, Herter TM, Scott SH. Random change in cortical load representation suggests distinct control of posture and movement. Nat Neurosci. 2005;8(4):498–504.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kalaska JF, Cohen DA, Hyde ML, Prud’homme M. A comparison of movement direction-related versus load direction-related activity in primate motor cortex, using a two-dimensional reaching task. J Neurosci. 1989;9(6):2080–102.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sergio LE, Kalaska JF. Systematic changes in directional tuning of motor cortex cell activity with hand location in the workspace during generation of static isometric forces in constant spatial directions. J Neurophysiol. 1997;78(2):1170–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kakei S, Hoffman DS, Strick PL. Sensorimotor transformations in cortical motor areas. Neurosci Res. 2003;46(1):1–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Scott SH. Inconvenient truths about neural processing in primary motor cortex. J Physiol. 2008;586(5):1217–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Shadmehr R, Mussa-Ivaldi FA. Adaptive representation of dynamics during learning of a motor task. J Neurosci. 1994;14(5 Pt 2):3208–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Mazzoni P, Krakauer JW. An implicit plan overrides an explicit strategy during visuomotor adaptation. J Neurosci. 2006;26(14):3642–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Krakauer JW, Pine ZM, Ghilardi MF, Ghez C. Learning of visuomotor transformations for vectorial planning of reaching trajectories. J Neurosci. 2000;20(23):8916–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sainburg RL, Wang J. Interlimb transfer of visuomotor rotations: independence of direction and final position information. Exp Brain Res. 2002;145(4):437–47.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Krakauer JW, Ghilardi MF, Ghez C. Independent learning of internal models for kinematic and dynamic control of reaching. Nat Neurosci. 1999;2(11):1026–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wolpert DM, Ghahramani Z, Jordan MI. Are arm trajectories planned in kinematic or dynamic ­coordinates? An adaptation study. Exp Brain Res. 1995;103(3):460–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Wang J, Sainburg RL. Interlimb transfer of novel inertial dynamics is asymmetrical. J Neurophysiol. 2004;92(1):349–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Criscimagna-Hemminger SE, Donchin O, Gazzaniga MS, Shadmehr R. Learned dynamics of reaching movements generalize from dominant to nondominant arm. J Neurophysiol. 2003;89(1):168–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Malfait N, Shiller DM, Ostry DJ. Transfer of motor learning across arm configurations. J Neurosci. 2002;22(22):9656–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Conditt MA, Gandolfo F, Mussa-Ivaldi FA. The motor system does not learn the dynamics of the arm by rote memorization of past experience. J Neurophysiol. 1997;78(1):554–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Gazzaniga MS. The split brain revisited. Sci Am. 1998;279(1):50–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Sainburg RL. Evidence for a dynamic-dominance hypothesis of handedness. Exp Brain Res. 2002;142(2):241–58.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Kawashima R, Roland PE, O’Sullivan BT. Activity in the human primary motor cortex related to ipsilateral hand movements. Brain Res. 1994;663(2):251–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Winstein CJ, Pohl PS. Effects of unilateral brain ­damage on the control of goal-directed hand movements. Exp Brain Res. 1995;105(1):163–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Yarosh CA, Hoffman DS, Strick PL. Deficits in movements of the wrist ipsilateral to a stroke in hemiparetic subjects. J Neurophysiol. 2004;92(6):3276–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Schaefer SY, Haaland KY, Sainburg RL. Hemispheric specialization and functional impact of ipsilesional deficits in movement coordination and accuracy. Neuropsychologia. 2009;47(13):2953–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Schaefer SY, Haaland KY, Sainburg RL. Dissociation of initial trajectory and final position errors during visuomotor adaptation following unilateral stroke. Brain Res. 2009;1298:78–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Rinehart JK, Singleton RD, Adair JC, Sadek JR, Haaland KY. Arm use after left or right hemiparesis is influenced by hand preference. Stroke. 2009;40(2):545–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Nozaki D, Kurtzer I, Scott SH. Limited transfer of learning between unimanual and bimanual skills within the same limb. Nat Neurosci. 2006;9(11):1364–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Wang J, Sainburg RL. Generalization of visuomotor learning between bilateral and unilateral conditions. J Neurophysiol. 2009;102(5):2790–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Lum PS, Burgar CG, Van der Loos M, Shor PC, Majmundar M, Yap R. MIME robotic device for upper-limb neurorehabilitation in subacute stroke subjects: a follow-up study. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2006;43(5):631–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departments of Kinesiology and NeurologyPennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA
  2. 2.Research Service 151New Mexico VA Healthcare SystemAlbuquerqueUSA

Personalised recommendations