Article

Examining contemporary motor control theories from the perspective of degrees of freedom

Department of Occupational Therapy, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
Australian Occupational Therapy Journal (Impact Factor: 0.83). 04/2013; 60(2):138-43. DOI: 10.1111/1440-1630.12009
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Occupational therapy aims to restore independent living skills and to improve social participation for clients; therefore, optimising motor ability can be a major goal during intervention in clinical practice. Choosing the adequate approach for each client is critical to achieve treatment goals. As frame of reference is based on contemporary theories related to human behaviours, it is crucial to synthesise current theories of motor control for clinical application. In this review, four motor control theories were examined by the Bernstein's classical question: redundant degrees of freedom. By addressing the central issue in motor control theories, the strengths and weaknesses for each theory were discussed in detail.
Classical literatures were selected for each theory and related references were reviewed as evidence to support the potential biological plausibility.
The research of motor control theories have been developed for over centuries, researchers still strive to discover how human beings execute movements. To date, motor control theories were mainly proposed by three disciplines: biology, psychology and engineering. Each discipline has unique perspective to develop solutions for understanding the processes behind the execution of movement.
For occupational therapists in clinics, it is imperative to integrate current knowledge and motor control theories into practice and to explore new approaches to treat clients with motor disability.

0 Followers
 · 
157 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to investigate the learning mechanisms underlying motor adaptation of arm movements to externally applied perturbing forces. We considered two alternative hypotheses. According to one, adaptation occurs through the learning of a mapping between the states (positions and velocities) visited by the arm and the forces experienced at those states. The alternative hypothesis is that adaptation occurs through the memorization of the temporal sequence of forces experienced along specific trajectories. The first mechanism corresponds to developing a model of the dynamics of the environment, whereas the second is a form of "rote learning." Both types of learning would lead to the recovery of the unperturbed performance. We have tested these hypotheses by examining how adaptation is transferred across different types of movements. Our results indicate that 1) adaptation to an externally applied force field occurs with different classes of movements including but not limited to reaching movements and 2) adaptation generalizes across different movements that visit the same regions of the external field. These findings are not compatible with the hypothesis of rote learning. Instead, they are consistent with the hypothesis that adaptation to changes in movement dynamics is achieved by a module that learns to reproduce the structure of the environmental field as an association between visited states and experienced forces, independent of the kinematics of the movements made during adaptation.
    Journal of Neurophysiology 08/1997; 78(1):554-60. · 3.04 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Humans learn to make reaching movements in novel dynamic environments by acquiring an internal motor model of their limb dynamics. Here, the authors investigated how 4- to 11-year-old children (N = 39) and adults (N = 7) adapted to changes in arm dynamics, and they examined whether those data support the view that the human brain acquires inverse dynamics models (IDM) during development. While external damping forces were applied, the children learned to perform goal-directed forearm flexion movements. After changes in damping, all children showed kinematic aftereffects indicative of a neural controller that still attempted to compensate the no longer existing damping force. With increasing age, the number of trials toward complete adaptation decreased. When damping was present, forearm paths were most perturbed and most variable in the youngest children but were improved in the older children. The findings indicate that the neural representations of limb dynamics are less precise in children and less stable in time than those of adults. Such controller instability might be a primary cause of the high kinematic variability observed in many motor tasks during childhood. Finally, the young children were not able to update those models at the same rate as the older children, who, in turn, adapted more slowly than adults. In conclusion, the ability to adapt to unknown forces is a developmental achievement. The present results are consistent with the view that the acquisition and modification of internal models of the limb dynamics form the basis of that adaptive process.
    Journal of Motor Behavior 04/2003; 35(1):41-52. DOI:10.1080/00222890309602120 · 1.41 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The authors investigated adaptation of goal-directed forearm movements to an unknown external viscous force assisting forearm flexion in 6 patients with cerebellar dysfunction and in 6 control participants. Motor performance was generally degraded in cerebellar patients and was markedly reduced under the force condition in both groups. However, patients and controls were able to adapt to the novel force within 8 trials. Only the healthy controls were able to improve motor performance when readapting to a null-force condition. The results indicate that cerebellar patients' motor control system has imprecise estimations of actual limb dynamics at its disposal. Force adaptation may have been preserved because single-joint movements were performed, whereas the negative viscous force alone and no interaction forces had to be compensated.
    Journal of Motor Behavior 04/2004; 36(1):28-38. DOI:10.3200/JMBR.36.1.28-38 · 1.41 Impact Factor

Similar Publications