Motor Control: a Sense of Movement

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS MOTOR CONTROL A sense of movement Neuroscience textbooks tell us that with a shorter latency after S1 stimu- whisker protraction, and that M1retract the motor cortex controls move- lation than after M1 stimulation. only induces whisker retraction ment. But now, Carl Petersen and Thus, S1 and M1 are both involved in indirectly, through S1 activation. colleagues show that sensory cortex whisker motor and sensory process- By mapping the neural pathways may have an equally important role ing. The M1 area that induced C2 involved in C2 whisker retraction in motor control. retraction was termed M1retract; a and protraction, the authors found The authors showed that a single, more medial M1 region that induced that M1C2 and S1C2 have reciprocal brief deflection of the C2 whisker C2 protraction under microstimula- connections and project to adjacent induced activity in the correspond- tion was termed M1protract. regions in subcortical areas. In the ing barrel column of the primary The authors next investigated the brain stem, this includes the reticular somatosensory cortex (S1), followed functional relevance of this finding. formation as a projection area of M1, by a response in a small area in the By attaching metal particles to the C2 and the spinal trigeminal nuclei as primary motor cortex (M1). Direct whisker and applying a pulsed mag- a projection area of S1. Both areas microstimulation or optogenetic netic field, the authors could evoke project to the facial nucleus, which stimulation of either area induced C2 whisker deflections. The whisker contains whisker motor neurons. a brief retraction of the C2 whisker, retracted in response to this stimulus, Indeed, direct electrical stimula- and this response was abolished when tion of the reticular formation and S1 was inactivated — but not spinal trigeminal nuclei induced when M1 was inactivated — with whisker protraction and retraction, tetrodoxin (TTX). This suggested respectively. that S1 drives the retraction response. Together, these findings point to These data raised the question of the existence of two parallel pathways whether M1 requires S1 activation for opposing whisker movement. to induce whisker retraction. In fact, Whether sensory cortex drives motor microstimulation or optogenetic responses in other species, including stimulation of M1retract combined with humans, remains to be investigated. S1 inactivation using TTX resulted in Leonie Welberg whisker protraction, and stimulation ORIGINAL RESEARCH PAPER Matyas, F. et al. of M1protract while S1 was inactivated Motor control by sensory cortex. Science 330, enhanced whisker protraction. This 1240–1243 (2010) indicates that M1 primarily drives NATURE REVIEWS | NEUROSCIENCE VOLUME 12 | JANUARY 2011 © 2011 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved.

Copy Link

Recommended publications

A Revised Computational Neuroanatomy for Motor Control
This is the author’s final version; this article has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 1 A Revised Computational Neuroanatomy for Motor Control 2 Shlomi Haar1, Opher Donchin2,3 3 1. Department of BioEngineering, Imperial College London, UK 4 2. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel 5 3. Zlotowski Center for Neuroscience, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel 6 7 Corresponding author: Shlomi Haar ([email protected]) 8 Imperial College London, London, SW7 2AZ, UK 9 10 Acknowledgements: We would like to thank Ilan Dinstein, Liad Mudrik, Daniel Glaser, Alex Gail, and 11 Reza Shadmehr for helpful discussions about the manuscript. Shlomi Haar is supported by the Royal 12 Society – Kohn International Fellowship (NF170650). Work on this review was partially supported by 13 DFG grant TI-239/16-1. 14 15 Abstract 16 We discuss a new framework for understanding the structure of motor control. Our approach 17 integrates existing models of motor control with the reality of hierarchical cortical processing and the 18 parallel segregated loops that characterize cortical-subcortical connections. We also incorporate the recent 19 claim that cortex functions via predictive representation and optimal information utilization. Our 20 framework assumes each cortical area engaged in motor control generates a predictive model of a different 21 aspect of motor behavior. In maintaining these predictive models, each area interacts with a different part 22 of the cerebellum and basal ganglia. These subcortical areas are thus engaged in domain appropriate 23 system identification and optimization. This refocuses the question of division of function among different 24 cortical areas.
[Show full text]
Motor Control in the Brain
Motor Control in the Brain Travis DeWolf School of Computer Science University of Waterloo Waterloo, ON Canada December 19, 2008 Abstract There has been much progress in the development of a model of motor control in the brain in the last decade; from the improved method for mathematically extracting the predicted movement direction from a population of neurons to the application of optimal control theory to motor control models, much work has been done to further our understanding of this area. In this paper recent literature is reviewed and the direction of future research is examined. 1 Introduction In the last decade there has been a push from investigating the coordinate system used in the brain, which has been the focus of research since the 1970s, back toward using reductionist experiment techniques and developing more encompassing models of motor control in the brain[28]. Optimal control theory applied to motor control in the brain has also recently started being explored as a framework for models. This has lead to research into the underlying biology of the implementations of internal models of movement and reinforcement learning reward systems in the brain[32]. In addition to this, with the discovery of motor primitives[24], which are often referred to as the `building blocks of movement', many of the ideas about neural activity carried out in the motor cortex need be reworked. The analysis techniques employed by researchers have been improved and of course the computing power available has increased enormously, and these developments have in turn opened the door to the need for further mathematical technique developments for accurate movement analysis and prediction.
[Show full text]
Sensory Change Following Motor Learning
A. M. Green, C. E. Chapman, J. F. Kalaska and F. Lepore (Eds.) Progress in Brain Research, Vol. 191 ISSN: 0079-6123 Copyright Ó 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. CHAPTER 2 Sensory change following motor learning { k { { Andrew A. G. Mattar , Sazzad M. Nasir , Mohammad Darainy , and { } David J. Ostry , ,* { Department of Psychology, McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada { Shahed University, Tehran, Iran } Haskins Laboratories, New Haven, Connecticut, USA k The Roxelyn and Richard Pepper Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA Abstract: Here we describe two studies linking perceptual change with motor learning. In the first, we document persistent changes in somatosensory perception that occur following force field learning. Subjects learned to control a robotic device that applied forces to the hand during arm movements. This led to a change in the sensed position of the limb that lasted at least 24 h. Control experiments revealed that the sensory change depended on motor learning. In the second study, we describe changes in the perception of speech sounds that occur following speech motor learning. Subjects adapted control of speech movements to compensate for loads applied to the jaw by a robot. Perception of speech sounds was measured before and after motor learning. Adapted subjects showed a consistent shift in perception. In contrast, no consistent shift was seen in control subjects and subjects that did not adapt to the load. These studies suggest that motor learning changes both sensory and motor function. Keywords: motor learning; sensory plasticity; arm movements; proprioception; speech motor control; auditory perception. Introduction the human motor system and, likewise, to skill acquisition in the adult nervous system.
[Show full text]
Motor Control Paper“ for Our Common Script - IPNFA - Nicola Fischer, Carsten Schaefer „Well-Fed-Version“
suggestion for a „Motor Control Paper“ for our common script - IPNFA - Nicola Fischer, Carsten Schaefer „well-fed-version“ _______________________________________ Motor Control _______________________________________ 1. Definition and Contributions of Motor Control 2. Postural control 3. Activities 1. Definitions and Contributions Ø Definition of Motor Control “Motor control is defined as the ability to regulate or direct the mechanisms essential to movement.” (Shumway-Cook & Woollacott 2011, p.4; Horak et al 1997) Relevant questions are: - “How does the central nervous system (CNS) organize the many individual muscles and joints into coordinated functional movements? (Bernstein 1967; Shumway-Cook & Woollacott 2011; Magill 2003; Schmidt & Lee 2011) - How is sensory information from the environment and the body used to select and control movement? - What is the best way to study movement, and how can movement problems be quantified in patients with motor control problems?” (Shumway-Cook & Woollacott 2011, p.4) “Movement emerges from interactions between the individual, the task and the environment.” (Shumway-Cook & Woollacott 2011, p.5) figure 1: adapted from Shumway-Cook (Shumway-Cook & Woollacott 2011) Ø Theories of Motor Control § Reflex Theory e.g. Sir. Ch. Sherrington (Sherrington 1947) § Hierarchical Theory e.g. Rudolf Magnus, Arnold Gesell § Motor Programming Theory e.g. Karl Lashley (Fitch & Martins 2014) Nicolai Bernstein … as a base for the Systems Theory (Bernstein 1967) § Systems Theory / Dynamic Action Theory / Dynamic Pattern Theory - self organizing systems e.g. J.A. Scott Kelso, Viktor Jirsa (Jirsa & Kelso 2004) § Ecological Theory e.g. James Gibson (Gibson 1983) Ø Sensory Contributions to Motor Control For the closed-loop control system, sensory (or afferent) information is necessary to regulate our suggestion for a „Motor Control Paper“ for our common script - IPNFA - Nicola Fischer, Carsten Schaefer „well-fed-version“ movements (Adams 1971; Schmidt & Lee 2011).
[Show full text]
The Perception for Action Control Theory (PACT): a Perceptuo-Motor Theory of Speech Perception Jean-Luc Schwartz, Anahita Basirat, Lucie Ménard, Marc Sato
The Perception for Action Control Theory (PACT): a perceptuo-motor theory of speech perception Jean-Luc Schwartz, Anahita Basirat, Lucie Ménard, Marc Sato To cite this version: Jean-Luc Schwartz, Anahita Basirat, Lucie Ménard, Marc Sato. The Perception for Action Control Theory (PACT): a perceptuo-motor theory of speech perception. Journal of Neurolinguistics, Elsevier, 2012, 25 (5), pp.336-354. 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2009.12.004. hal-00442367 HAL Id: hal-00442367 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00442367 Submitted on 21 Dec 2009 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. The Perception for Action Control Theory (PACT): a perceptuo-motor theory of speech perception Jean-Luc Schwartz (1), Anahita Basirat (1), Lucie Ménard (2), Marc Sato (1) (1) GIPSA-Lab, Speech and Cognition Department (ICP), UMR 5216 CNRS – Grenoble University, France (2) Laboratoire de Phonétique, UQAM / CRLMB, Montreal, Canada Abstract It is an old-standing debate in the field of speech communication to determine whether speech perception involves auditory or multisensory representations and processing, independently on any procedural knowledge about the production of speech units or on the contrary if it is based on a recoding of the sensory input in terms of articulatory gestures, as posited in the Motor Theory of Speech Perception.
[Show full text]
Proprioception in Motor Learning: Lessons from a Deafferented Subject
Exp Brain Res DOI 10.1007/s00221-015-4315-8 RESEARCH ARTICLE Proprioception in motor learning: lessons from a deafferented subject N. Yousif1 · J. Cole2 · J. Rothwell3 · J. Diedrichsen4 Received: 11 July 2014 / Accepted: 7 May 2015 © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015 Abstract Proprioceptive information arises from a vari- movement in the perturbed direction. This suggests that ety of channels, including muscle, tendon, and skin affer- this form of learning may depend on static position sense at ents. It tells us where our static limbs are in space and the end of the movement. Our results indicate that dynamic how they are moving. It remains unclear however, how and static proprioception play dissociable roles in motor these proprioceptive modes contribute to motor learning. learning. Here, we studied a subject (IW) who has lost large myeli- nated fibres below the neck and found that he was strongly Keywords Proprioception · Motor control · impaired in sensing the static position of his upper limbs, Deafferentation · Force field learning when passively moved to an unseen location. When making reaching movements however, his ability to discriminate in which direction the trajectory had been diverted was unim- Introduction paired. This dissociation allowed us to test the involve- ment of static and dynamic proprioception in motor learn- Proprioception is a collective term that refers to non-visual ing. We found that IW showed a preserved ability to adapt input that tells us where our body is in space. Propriocep- to force fields when visual feedback was present. He was tion has an important function in normal motor control even sensitive to the exact form of the force perturbation, and motor learning.
[Show full text]
Proprioception and Motor Control in Parkinson's Disease
Journal of Motor Behavior, Vol. 41, No. 6, 2009 Copyright C 2009 Heldref Publications Proprioception and Motor Control in Parkinson’s Disease Jurgen¨ Konczak1,6, Daniel M. Corcos2,FayHorak3, Howard Poizner4, Mark Shapiro5,PaulTuite6, Jens Volkmann7, Matthias Maschke8 1School of Kinesiology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. 2Department of Kinesiology and Nutrition, University of Illinois at Chicago. 3Department of Science and Engineering, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland. 4Institute for Neural Computation, University of California–San Diego. 5Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois. 6Department of Neurology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. 7Department of Neurology, Universitat¨ Kiel, Germany. 8Department of Neurology, Bruderkrankenhaus,¨ Trier, Germany. ABSTRACT. Parkinson’s disease (PD) is a neurodegenerative dis- cles, tendons, and joint capsules. These receptors provide order that leads to a progressive decline in motor function. Growing information about muscle length, contractile speed, muscle evidence indicates that PD patients also experience an array of tension, and joint position. Collectively, this latter informa- sensory problems that negatively impact motor function. This is es- pecially true for proprioceptive deficits, which profoundly degrade tion is also referred to as proprioception or muscle sense. motor performance. This review specifically address the relation According to the classical definition by Goldscheider (1898) between proprioception and motor impairments in PD. It is struc- the four properties of the muscle sense are (a) passive mo- tured around 4 themes: (a) It examines whether the sensitivity of tion sense, (b) active motion sense, (c) limb position sense, kinaesthetic perception, which is based on proprioceptive inputs, is and (d) the sense of heaviness. Alternatively, some use the actually altered in PD.
[Show full text]
Real-Time Motor Control Using Recurrent Neural Networks
Real-Time Motor Control using Recurrent Neural Networks Dongsung Huh, and Emanuel Todorov Abstract—In this paper, we introduce a novel neural network single task only. On the other hand, most motor areas, architecture for motor control. Our general framework employs a recurrent neural network (RNN) to govern a dynamical system (body) in a closed loop fashion. This hybrid system is trained to behave as an interpreter that translates high-level motor plan into desired movement. Our method uses a variant of optimal control theory applicable to neural networks. When applied to biology, our method yields recurrent neural networks which are analogous to circuits in primary motor cortex (M1) or central pattern generators (CPGs) in the spinal cord. Fig 1. Body is a dynamical system with state 풙. Controller receives time-varying command (task-information) 풌 and controls body accordingly. The combined body-controller system can be seen as I. INTRODUCTION performing a mapping from command sequence 풌 to body-state In recent years, there has been much progress in the study sequence 풙 , i.e. movement. of biological motor control, both experimentally and including the primary motor cortex, subserve multiple theoretically. Numerous neural recording experiments have motor-tasks under changing task environment, where the task yielded insight into the neural substrate of motor control. information (or command) is given from the decision making Optimality principles of sensory motor functions have been (or motor-planning) centers of the brain. Therefore, it is successful in explaining behavior [1,2]. However, there is a appropriate to model the motor area as performing a general lack of understanding of how the two are related.
[Show full text]
Interlink of Pain and Motor Controls: an Enigma
Developments in CRIMSON PUBLISHERS C Wings to the Research Anaesthetics & Pain Management ISSN: 2640-9399 Editorial Interlink of Pain and Motor Controls: An Enigma Mohammed Sheeba Kauser1* and Shahul Hameed SA2 1Department of Physiotherapy, Apollo Hospital, India 2Department of Orthopedics Resident, Apollo Hospital, India *Corresponding author: Mohammed Sheeba Kauser, Department of Physiotherapy, Apollo Hospital, India Submission: February 01, 2018; Published: February 20, 2018 Editorial One more agenda or factor to be considered in this hypothesis It’s not certain nor very clears that pain causes changes in is that accuracy of movement control is dependent on the sensory motor control or motor changes lead to pain, or both. where two element of the motor system. Inaccurate afferent input would affect researches Farfan [1] & Panjabi [2] have presented their models for instance those arising from mechanoreceptors. In muscles or to poor control of joint movement, repeated micro trauma and all aspects of motor control from simple reflex responses especially amongst others presenting that deficits in the motor control lead other elements of spine. Where as many studies are also argued pain. Later on with this models Janda [3] has put forward his that sensory acuity may reduce after repetitions due to fatigue theory and suggested that population who have mild neurological there by decreased muscle endurance with injury or pain may lead signs are more subjected to have pain. Furthermore slow reactions to impaired sensory acuity through increased fatigability. There have been attached to increase risk of musculoskeletal injuries [4]. Therefore however their conversations may be true, and draws a leading to reducing the accuracy of the daily activities.
[Show full text]
Optimal Feedback Control and the Neural Basis of Volitional Motor Control
REVIEWS OPTIMAL FEEDBACK CONTROL AND THE NEURAL BASIS OF VOLITIONAL MOTOR CONTROL Stephen H. Scott Skilled motor behaviour, from the graceful leap of a ballerina to a precise pitch by a baseball player, appears effortless but reflects an intimate interaction between the complex mechanical properties of the body and control by a highly distributed circuit in the CNS. An important challenge for understanding motor function is to connect these three levels of the motor system — motor behaviour, limb mechanics and neural control. Optimal feedback control theory might provide the important link across these levels of the motor system and help to unravel how the primary motor cortex and other regions of the brain plan and control movement. Perhaps the most surprising feature of the motor system The goal of this review is to bring all three levels of is the ease with which humans and other animals can the motor system together, to illustrate how M1 is move. It is only when we observe the clumsy movements linked to limb physics and motor behaviour. The key of a child, or the motor challenges faced by individuals ingredient is the use of optimal feedback control as a with neurological disorders, that we become aware of model of motor control in which sophisticated behav- the inherent difficulties of motor control. iours are created by low-level control signals (BOX 2). The efforts of systems neuroscientists to understand I begin with a brief review of each level of the motor how the brain controls movement include studies system, followed by a more detailed description of how on the physics of the musculoskeletal system, neuro- optimal feedback control predicts many features of physiological studies to explore neural control, and neural processing in M1.
[Show full text]
The Emulation Theory of Representation: Motor Control, Imagery, and Perception
BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN SCIENCES (2004) 27, 377–442 Printed in the United States of America The emulation theory of representation: Motor control, imagery, and perception Rick Grush Department of Philosophy, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093-0119 [email protected] http://mind.ucsd.edu Abstract: The emulation theory of representation is developed and explored as a framework that can revealingly synthesize a wide vari- ety of representational functions of the brain. The framework is based on constructs from control theory (forward models) and signal processing (Kalman filters). The idea is that in addition to simply engaging with the body and environment, the brain constructs neural circuits that act as models of the body and environment. During overt sensorimotor engagement, these models are driven by efference copies in parallel with the body and environment, in order to provide expectations of the sensory feedback, and to enhance and process sensory information. These models can also be run off-line in order to produce imagery, estimate outcomes of different actions, and eval- uate and develop motor plans. The framework is initially developed within the context of motor control, where it has been shown that inner models running in parallel with the body can reduce the effects of feedback delay problems. The same mechanisms can account for motor imagery as the off-line driving of the emulator via efference copies. The framework is extended to account for visual imagery as the off-line driving of an emulator of the motor-visual loop. I also show how such systems can provide for amodal spatial imagery.
[Show full text]
Cerebellum and Proprioception
CEREBELLUM AND PROPRIOCEPTION by Heidi Michelle Weeks A dissertation submitted to Johns Hopkins University in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Baltimore, MD June, 2016 Abstract When the cerebellum is damaged, the ability to make coordinated, accurate movements is affected. Motor control and learning following cerebellar damage have been well studied, but less is known about the effect on proprioception (the sense of limb position and motion). In this dissertation, we examine the involvement of the cerebellum in proprioception by assessing the proprioceptive deficits occurring in people with cerebellar damage. We first investigated multi-joint localization ability (the position of the hand in space) in patients with cerebellar damage and healthy controls. From this, we confirmed that controls showed improved proprioceptive acuity during multi-joint localization when actively moving, as compared to being passively moved. While some cerebellar patients were comparable to controls, others had impaired acuity during active movement. Results did not differ during single-joint localization, suggesting that impairments were due to active movement, rather than multi-joint discoordination. In addition, our results indicated that cerebellar damage may differentially impair components of proprioceptive sense. Second, we assessed dynamic proprioceptive position sense (the position of the hand during movement) both orthogonal to the direction of movement (only spatial information was relevant) and in the direction of movement (both spatial and temporal ii information were relevant). During passive movement, controls had better proprioceptive acuity when only spatial information was needed, regardless of the direction of their movements. In addition, when both spatial and temporal information were relevant, acuity decreased if subjects focused on the spatial information, underscoring the importance of temporal information during movement.
[Show full text]